User talk:Startus

Wiki creator helpful tips
Hi Magogre,

First off, I will just start by welcoming you to the wiki creator team. Thank you for volunteering. As you are no doubt aware, Content Policy is our key global policy that guides us in creating wikis for customers. Essentially, every wiki needs to have both a clear purpose, some sort of scope (broad or narrow), and a topical focus. This is the main criterion that helps us to determine whether a wiki will have any potential Content Policy problems.

Second, I wanted to share with you a few tips that I found helpful when I first joined as a wiki creator:


 * 1) "Request comments" tab. Intuitively, one would think to use this tab when requesting more information, but as Amanda Catherine (and others) pointed out to me shortly after I joined as a wiki creator, there is currently a known issue with this in that the requestor isn't notified via e-mail unless their wiki is either (a) approved or (b) declined. Thus, when requesting more information on a wiki request, you really either (a) use the "decline" tab, referencing your follow-up comments in that text box and telling them to back into Special:RequestWikiEdit/  in order to add to, but not replace, their existing description with the needed information or (b) use either the "request comments" or "decline" tab in combination with a message on the requestor's user talk page on Meta. The approach you use is entirely up to you. I personally prefer option A, but either one is fine;
 * Note: this was prior to RequestWiki changes made since last fall, so this one no longer applies, but I included it, albeit with strikethrough text for posterity
 * 1) Private wikis. Private wikis can generally have a shorter description and a less specific purpose, scope, or topic, but they do still need one. If you have some reservations about approving it as, say, a public wiki, due to that vagueness, you can tell them, in your comments prior to approving it, that you're approving it only as a private wiki and remind them to ensure their wiki complies with all aspects of Content Policy;
 * 2) Eurovision song contest and fictional worldbuilding wikis. These are two types of wikis that have few, if any, problems with them. So, as long as there's a clear sitename, URL, and at least a few words in the description that indicates this as the purpose, it's fine to approve them;
 * 3) Reception wikis (positive and negative). Many of the Reception wikis tend to give us the most the grief, especially in terms of content that is very negative about users. If it's a Reception wiki that focuses on terrible fast-food restaurants, that's usually less problematic than, say, one that focuses on gamer or YouTube celebrities, mainly because you're not dealing with content about real, living people. Please don't hesitate in asking follow up questions, sometimes multiple times, of these wikis, trying to narrow down whether the wikis will write about real people in some way and, if so, how they will do it. And, at the end of the day, if you are still not comfortable approving, you can write "on hold" for review by another wiki creator in "request comments";
 * 4) Chinese language mini-world wiki requests. These ones are tricky, but cause us arguably the most grief, particularly when they publish personal information of real people without their consent. Stewards have recently closed a swath of them following a detailed report on stewards' noticeboard, but some of the tricks I've observed them using are odd descriptions like "anti-dog wiki" or to "expose the truth and scandal". Somewhat less common, they will use a completely different, but vague, description, then change their tune when you follow up with them and use some of those key phrases I mentioned in the previous sentence;
 * 5) Google Translate. Don't hesitate to use Google Translate to review non-English public and private wikis. Notwithstanding the above point, most of these wikis' descriptions translate surprisingly well. As you've probably already noticed, I like to copy and paste the translated to English description into "request comments," so other wiki creators can see it easily. This is optional, but it's a good practice, I think; and,
 * 6) Don't hesitate to reach out on Discord and ask for a second opinion. If you are still unsure about approving a wiki, or just want a second opinion, don't hesitate to reach out to any wiki creator on Discord. This might be the most important guideline.

There's probably some additional tips I could include, based on more contemporary types of recent wiki requests, notably recent 4chan- and Polandball-type wiki requests, which will possibly require sending back to the requestor for additional clarifying information at least once. Feel free to share suggested additions to these tips, and let me know if you find them useful. :)

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to mention of the informal policy to decline wikis with an NSFW focus for the 'asking more details' option and ask them to reaffirm that they've reviewed the Content Policy with respect to NSFW content, plus advise them to avoid posting NSFW on the front page and have a content warning on the wiki. --Raidarr (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the additional information. I was already informed by Agent but not in vain to inform me twice :) --Magogre (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good point as well, Raidarr. I would clarify that as more of a generally accepted best practice common among most wiki creators. I will add that to my tips, as well as incorporate your suggestions at your user talk page into a subpage of my userspace. Speaking of which, I aim to reply to your comments there shortly. Dmehus (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'll note these with thanks :) --Magogre (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

js help
Do you have any knowledge of javascript? I need help with making javascript stuff for wikis (like OneClickArchiver) Anpang   Talk   Stuff  06:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not really good at js. I adopted OneClickArchiver from en-WP. It was not coded by me. --Magogre (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that, but atleast you know how to make it work properly with meta not like me hahaha Anpang   Talk   Stuff  12:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverting edits identified as likely requiring oversight
Hi Magogre,

I cam across a revision in which you identified an IP address as likely belonging to a user, as your edit summary articulated; however, reverted the user's edit, saying it was not necessary to remove the IP, thus making an additional revision requiring oversight. This was perplexing to me, so any clarification you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

That being said, it's good that you did not revert the user's reversion, please do keep this in mind when patrolling revisions on Meta Wiki.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , it was the poor judgement from my part. I agree that the user was logged out while commenting. But at first I thought it was a different user. I wanted to add the signature of real author of the comment, my intention wasn't to publicize their PII (whether they were YF or not). But when they reverted my edit and requested oversight, I dropped it. --Magogre (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Acknowledging mistakes is an important component, and as I said, as you dropped it, that was good, too. This was meant to just be helpful guidance. :) Dmehus (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)