June 24, 2018Edit
I noticed that you recently deleted the forum pages, and none of the articles have a comment section. I wanted to talk about something that I think would make an interesting discussion. That is, earning 1195 Orbs in Jak 3 without the Orb glitch. Denzal689 (talk) 18:51, June 24, 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon, Jak Himself
I added the balloon lurker note in the disambiguation page since I thought it would count as a flying lurker due to them using the balloon, hover-type of vehicle, IIRC. I didn't noticed that sources are required for those type of pages, so the "balloon lurker" part does not contain any sources. It was merely added from my own opinion. My apologies for the error on that part; I have almost no experience in doing this type of effort on editing wikia pages, so this is my first-time. The balloon lurker section could be deleted.
On the other hand, I appreciate the admiration in your last sentence. I've grown interest in handling the pages of the FANDOM for quite some time. I love Jak and Daxter and cannot wait to explore more possibilites in handling the wikia for one of my favorite franchises. I see that you and others put numerous work into the Jak and Daxter wikia and I wanted to help out. I'm still learning the ropes of handling the pages, so mistakes were to be expected, but I'll gain more experience with that soon, (sent this from Mobile).
InfoboxBuilder suppression code Edit
Hey hey :)
For a little while now, I've seen you struggling to find the right code for this InfoboxBuilder-suppression notion.
Some earlier attempts were approved, because it's not an obvious security risk. But since it's come up several times now, we on the JS Review team have had more time to think about its broader implications.
And what I've noticed by looking at it more closely in test mode is that it totally shuts down Infobox Builder. Maybe the past iterations did this, and I just didn't see it. But today I realised that it didn't just preference source; it effectively eliminates IB as an option.
That's probably going over the line in terms of customisation policy, so our broader staff will certainly need discuss this more. Maybe there will be a way we can allow something like this code. Maybe there won't. Due to staff vacations, it might take a little time for a final decision to be made.
I don't think it's currently active on any wiki you administer, so this would be a good point at which to pause. In the meantime, you can certainly make it a part of your personal JS.
We'll have a definitive answer for you soon. Thanks! :) -- CzechOut 19:09, September 5, 2018 (UTC)
- Well, because it's a potential violation of customisation policy, a discussion amongst several members of staff is required. Obviously, a solution like the one you've suggested will be a part of the conversation. But it's unlikely the JS Review team will be approving any more IB-suppressing code until the discussion has been had. -- CzechOut 19:37, September 5, 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, thank you for all the hard work you do around the joint! -- CzechOut 19:41, September 5, 2018 (UTC)
- Though I did indeed pitch your latest idea to my peeps in the office, escaping the infobox builder has been determined to be a violation of customisation policy. We on the JS Review team won't be able to approve any site-wide code that does it, no matter how it does it. You're of course welcome to install this as personal JS. A personal version has already made its way to Dev Wiki. -- CzechOut 15:33, September 10, 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, thank you for all the hard work you do around the joint! -- CzechOut 19:41, September 5, 2018 (UTC)
Missing Forum DiscussionEdit
Greetings! I would like to have access to a handful of old forum discussions from 2015-2017, all originally authored by me. I want to review their information, and build on top of some of the findings. The discussions in question are about the TPL No Orb Challenge, the Jak 3 Giant Orb Easter Egg, and the theoretical explanation of the Sentinels. Whether the forums are re-opened, posted on my profile page, or ported into a word file for download, is up to you. Thank you for your time! Suzukiano (talk) 02:55, February 18, 2019 (UTC)
June 30, 2019Edit
Why the Hell did you Delete the Image I spent Days Taking a Picture of No one Has ever Taken a Screenshot of the Interior of the Stadium Ruins The Images you have Lack the Inside of it Did you know that —Preceding unsigned comment was added by TheLegendaryOne1 (talk · contribs) 18:22, June 30, 2019. Please sign your posts with ∼∼∼∼!
- I explained why on your talk page. Please do not re-upload the image again. Thanks. —Jak Himself (talk·contributions) 00:30, July 1, 2019 (UTC)
Community Council Edit
I was wondering if you would like to join the Community Council.
It's like a permanent focus group for Fandom and Gamepedia editors and admins.
If you're interested, can I contact you via your email on file to discuss more?
Advisor program Edit
Hello! I'm Isaac, from Fandom's Editor Experience team. One project that we're excited about launching is an initiative to pair newly registered users with experienced advisors (which they can choose from). These advisors would be available for answering basic editing questions and guiding appropriate edits, in the hope that these users will become active in the local community.
Why do this, rather than rely on admins and moderators? We've seen from research and experience (from Wikipedia) that establishing a human bond with a peer "senpai" or mentor can have a better effect on the comfort of the newcomer, especially where the high volume of edits may cause the quick response of rollbacks rather than taking the time to walk new editors through their early work. While some communities do take that time and care among their leaders, we feel an additional level might put new users at ease and help them be more comfortable with editing. Ultimately, we feel like this project will either free up some time for admins and moderators, or designate them as approachable welcomers to talk to and guide new users. We want to see how effective this is on a relatively small number of communities and see if Fandom's results are consistent with those experienced on Wikipedia. If they are, we may pursue expanding the pilot program and perhaps seeking to build it into a core part of the new platform.
Here's what we would wish for your community to agree to:
- At least one volunteer advisor, acting as an advisor and advocate helping newcomers. For the most part, this means responding to questions that newcomers leave the advisor in Discussions. Sometimes this may mean the advisor interacts with admins and moderators to address concerns regarding the newcomer. We have some advisors-at-large (those not tied to the local community, but available as fallbacks) already, but if you have ideas on who you might want to represent you in this role (or if you'd like to do so yourself!), feel free to contact me on my Wall or this thread.
- Discussions / Feeds. Your community must have this active for the current solution to work. This is the primary method in which advisors have open communication with the users that choose them.
- A change to your Welcome Messages to allow a method where a newcomer can choose an advisor. As you are currently participating in the MyDashboard program, there will be a card there to interact with an advisor.
We are testing this for the next two months, and will see what the future of the program is thereafter. Is this a program you would feel comfortable with placing on your community? — FishTank (wall) 22:44, November 22, 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Isaac. This sounds interesting, but to be completely honest, this wiki is probably a bit too small to yield any metric of success. I will say that we have a fairly ingrained human-interaction culture here (perhaps because we're so small), and most editors who have shown a desire to stick around were reached out to directly and invited into our discord server (namely, User:Pekuchos, User:Thesamoshagai, and User:Thatawesomecat, who incidentally is now an admin). We had some decent success with those three, but, as you can see, it's only those three. (Aside, Pekuchos unfortunately needed to leave due to real-life matters.)
- The other factor in play here is that among the core editors here (myself, User:Tim H, User:Technobliterator, and Thatawesomecat at the end there), we've already knocked most things out, or at least the low-to-medium hanging fruit. The remainder is stuff new editors probably wouldn't be interested in. This is part of the reason why we branched out into that New Wiki Order thing; got bored or done here, and started applying our stuff to other wikis.
- That all said, I definitely wouldn't mind the mechanism being there. Maybe if such a mentorship program were officially put into place, it would result in more successes than we've had in the past. —Jak Himself (talk·contributions) 01:15, November 23, 2019 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know, I've made a blog here to gather thoughts on this program (from participants and others).
There's also an in-progress set of guidelines with a pledge for advisors.
- Hi, sounds good. Do I sign the pledge to be a local adviser here? It says not to sign if you're not part of the experiment, but I'm unsure what that means. —Jak Himself (talk·contributions) 00:59, December 3, 2019 (UTC)
Checking in on the Advisor Program Edit
I'm just checking in with those taking part in the advisors project. Hopefully you will have had some time to see how it works, and have some ideas on how it can be improved!
How has it been working out for you and this wiki? We know that few people who sign up actually ask questions, but have you had any good (or bad) experiences with those who have?
Can you think of any areas we could improve on to make this a better system?
And my final question: looking at the project overall, how many stars out out of 5 would you give it (and why)?
Thanks so much for being a part of this experiment. Giving your knowledge and expertise to the next generation of editors is a great thing. Thanks! -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 23:44, January 23, 2020 (UTC)
- As I mentioned before, I don't think our wiki is quite large enough for the project to have yielded any meaningful results (at least not yet). One of my fellow admins tested it out by selecting me as an adviser and the one thing I'd say is that it'd probably be better if the communication was more user-to-user and direct. Currently, making a post on Discussions feels a little janky, especially since Discussions and the wiki are so separated. Conducting it through user talk pages would be better I think. It's kinda hard giving it a rating at this point, but I'm pretty neutral about it, so 2.5/5 (for now). Thanks for reaching out! —Jak Himself (talk·contributions) 01:48, January 24, 2020 (UTC)
An update on the advisor program.Edit
We've looked at the numbers and the project didn't give us the results we were hoping for. There just wasn't the boost in edits we wanted, and the number of users who followed though after choosing an advisor was very low.
On the other hand, it was an idea that was generally liked by admins on the test wikis and we got some great feedback on the process. We also think there's potential for something similar on the UCP, so we want to look into that.
This means we are going to wind down the project for now. We will leave it available to you, and add the set-up instructions to the Dev Wiki for other wikis to try. But it won't generally get updates and specific staff support.
It's a shame, we had high hopes for this, but it just didn't work out as hoped.
So it's up to you whether you are going to keep the feature or not. If you want to, then you don't need to do anything. The code will remain in place and work as before, and there will still be "at-large" advisors to help out.
If you decide to opt out, just let us know and we'll reverse the changes we made.
Let me know if you have any questions or need any help.