User:Randall00/MediaWiki-User talk:Peterblaise

Still looking for an accurate, contemporaneous "MediaWiki Installation Manual"
Peter Blaise says: failing contribute to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Contents/To_do (loca cookie/chache issue), I'll try to create one here. I look forward to anyone else trying to document the various roads to success implementing MediaWikis. As of 2007-05-18 there is no discussion yet!

My Struggle #1: prototype, building an intranet-sharable Wiki that does not require admin privileges on my local primary workstation. Cornelius Herzog's Wiki on WOS (Webserver On a usb Stick) from http://www.chsoftware.net/ works, but requires that I permit each visitor access by manually entering their IP address into a list, which requires that I be here for newbies to achieve initial success, and so dampens their enthusiasm to stay with the learning curve, and also is blind in that I can't easily know who's at what IP address. Also, this in Intranet only.

My struggle #2: alpha/beta, building an intranet-sharable Wiki WITH admin privileges on my remote secondary workstation. After many iterative struggles with Windows, IIS versus Apache, PHP, MySQL, I finally have 2 MediaWiki systems working on 1 MySQL. However, I have yet to find a resource that lists the linking steps and confirmation checks between MSWinXPPro, Apache, PHP, MySQL, and MediaWiki. PHPMyAdmin refuses to connect to MySQL, so there's more to do.

My dream struggle #3: build multiple Wikis that do not share the same database, and share over the Internet.

If anyone has links to resources that support resolutions to these struggles, please share! I've read most of the ones in Google's top search results and find they are missing specific linking steps and confirmation checks, and are usually out of date (MySQL 4 and PHP 4 and MediaWiki 1.3, for instance).

Here are some http://www.Google.com/ searches and results:
 * Search Terms: install mediawiki apache php mysql win xp winxp windows xp phpmyadmin ... and so on.


 * http://www.Google.com/ results:
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Install-Apache,-MySQL,-PHP,-and-phpMyAdmin-on-a-Windows-PC
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Install-phpMyAdmin-on-Your-Windows-PC
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Install-the-Apache-Web-Server-on-a-Windows-PC
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Install-the-MySQL-Database-Server-on-Your-Windows-PC
 * http://www.bicubica.com/apache-php-mysql/index.php
 * http://www.wikihow.com/Install-the-PHP-Engine-on-Your-Windows-PC
 * http://www.devside.net/
 * http://oss.segetech.com/wamp.html
 * http://www.wampserver.com/en/index.php
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Installing_MediaWiki_on_Windows_Server_2003
 * http://www.sematopia.com/?p=28http://www.yafla.com/dennisforbes/Many-Ways-to-Skin-a-Wiki-Hosting-a-Wiki-on-Windows/Many-Ways-to-Skin-a-Wiki-Hosting-a-Wiki-on-Windows.html
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Installing_MediaWiki_on_Windows_XP_-_MediaWiki_1.9.2
 * http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.windows.php
 * ... and so on for ~1,100,000 others.

... NONE of which are contemporaneous, complete, accurate, nor do they include linking steps and confirmation checks for the entire suite of OS, WS, DB, PI, WP, and E&E. Don'tcha love abbreviations? Anyway, these generic terms might help structure a "manual":


 * OS = Operating System - Linux, Windows ...
 * WS = Web Server - Apache, MS/IIS ...
 * DB = DataBase - MySQL, PostgreSQL ...
 * PI = Program/html parser/interpreter - PHP ...
 * WP = Wiki Program - MediaWiki ...
 * E&E = Extensions and Enhancements - FCKEditor, PHPMyAdmin, cache ...

I'll contribute what I have, but I have scant little success because no one else seems willing to return here or anywhere with their notes on the way to their own success.

-- Peter Blaise peterblaise 10:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Manual:Backing up a wiki - I have moved your additions
Hi, and welcome to the mediawiki wiki. I have moved your addition to Manual:Backing up a wiki to the talk page, because it doesn't seem appropriate the way it is now. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 11:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Manual talk:Contents and Manual:Contents/To do
Hi Peter, thanks for your input and the thoughts about this "looking for a manual" issue. I think your hints will become more useful soon … I dunno when this could lead to a nearly complete manual though (always depends on the people actually adding new and reworking existing contents). Well, there's still no real community on this site, and the main discussion about the site's content itself is somehow fragmented and often laggy. I added a short note to Manual talk:Contents btw., and Manual:Contents/To do was already helpful :-) Regards -- :Bdk: 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... do not change PD (Public Domain) Help / Help:Namespace page, and also, ask questions on discussion / talk pages only
Hi Peter, could you please not mess up pages here? Two points: Thanks -- :Bdk: 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)  – The help namespace is for the general PD help, not for system administration or manual stuff.
 * 2)  – Use talk pages if you have questions. That's why they are there.

--


 * Peter Blaise responds: You say: "... don't change other user's comments ..." when you probably mean "...please do not change my comments...", which is hypocritical since you changed - DELETED - my comments elsewhere rather than discuss my comments with your own contrasting point of view!
 * Now, I cannot read your post above due to abbreviated references, so I expanded the references. If you prefer that I leave your post truncated and abbreviated, so be it!  Here's my expansion of your post so I can read it and see what you are talking about, so I can cut and past and print the links and check them for myself:


 * Hmm (original title of this post)
 * Hi Peter, could you please not mess up pages here? Two points:
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Namespaces&diff=prev&oldid=101131 – The help namespace is for the general [Project:PD help] = PD help, not for system administration or manual stuff.
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Extension:CheckUser&action=history – Use talk pages if you have questions. That's why they are there.
 * Thanks --:Bdk: 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * No, you missed one point. You started an editwar within the help namespace. Do not do so again.
 * The rest of your reply is in the wrong location as it belongs to another thread below. -- :Bdk: 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds:
 * Thank you, :Bdk:  But ... I disagree (surprise!).  I think only the second person, the one who is the first to revert the contributions of others, can actually start an edit war.  So, since I have never reverted anything that anyone else deleted, I always seem to be the one to actually END edit wars, by backing down, and not starting edit wars by deleting or reverting.  Instead of engaging in the "editwar", as you claim I do, I surrender and retreat.  Instead, I go elsewhere to try to contribute to the MediaWiki.org wiki, and connect with and support my fellow MediaWiki software users.  On the one hand, I'm glad many people take pride in their contributions to MediaWiki.org, enough pride to revisit pages where they contributed to see the subsequent contributions of their fellow MediaWikians.  On the other hand, I see some people taking private ownership of pages that they come to think of as theirs alone, and so they tend to quash additional contributions, however trivial.
 * May I suggest to everyone that if someone changes a page, and the meaning is essentially similar, even though the exact wording may be not of our own choosing, that we leave it alone and let people feel welcome and encouraged to continue contributing. Think about this: what were OUR first posts like?  They needed a LOT of re-editing, didn't they?  So why don't we back off and allow newbies to grow as we did.  We may even find some newbies change their own contributions back to the wording originally offered by oldies.  It could happen.
 * Anyway, I see that it's a hard balance to maintain: one person making things look perfect for themselves versus another person making things look perfect for themselves, and each chooses a different criteria for "perfection"! My advice: rather than delete anything, why not just leave it alone, and contribute elsewhere using the same energy?  That GROWS MediaWiki.org pages and contributors, rather than shrinking it!
 * So, let's revisit the meaning of "edit war":
 * http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?EditWar
 * "... EditWar is what happens when two (or more) users
 * repeatedly overwrite each others' edits of a wiki page..."
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war
 * "...edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly
 * revert one another's edits to an article..."
 * http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=811
 * "...Edit War ... disputes in open source wikis (freely
 * editable online encyclopedias) where two parties
 * forever dispute and change entries on subjects..."
 * Yep, we disagree. I've never participated in an edit war.  Why?  "Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, and the pig likes it!" =8^o
 * However, I have contributed to discussion/talk pages where I thought it was safe and encouraged to have open discussions, but even my posts get deleted from there! So, here I am at my own user_talk/discussion page, and maybe people will leave my stuff here, and just contribute their own point of view without deleting mine ... we'll see!
 * Thank you again. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 18:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we make pages for the words we type into [search] bar?
Peter Blaise says:

Since Help:Namespaces is the article we get (bot) when we ask for "namespace" or "namespaces" at MediaWiki.org, why not put ALL help (or links) for "namespaces" in the an article page under that name? The Help:Namespaces article page does not offer much help on the MediaWiki meaning of the the word "namespace" - see
 * MediaWiki.org: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Namespace

So ... what is the Help:Namespaces article for? It does not even have links to deeper inforamtion about Namespaces. I can't find the definition of "namespace" when typing into the MediaWiki [search] bar. Searching on Google, I can find the following:
 * Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace

which comes from
 * Meta.WikiMedia.org: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace

Is there a reason MediaWiki.org can't see "meta" or can't find the meanings of any MediaWiki word typed into it's own [search] bar? See also Google search for define:namsespace for general non-MediaWiki meanings of the word "namespace". May I suggest that we all look up the existing meaning of words before we create new meanings?

Note that MediaWiki "articles" without a colon (:) in their name are in the "main" "namespace", which is for "articles". When contributing to a wiki, "articles/documents" that aren't directly related to the main/default "namespace" are probably best placed in/under other namespaces. When articles/documents are in another namespace than the main namespace, you get to them and build them by typing namespace:article-name; e.g. ':'. For example, to build "wtf" under "help" go/search for "help:wtf" and the MediaWiki software will with bring you to an existing page if there is one, or it will respond with an offer to allow you to build such a new page.

Here are a few default namespace names:


 * Help:nnn
 * Documentation about working with the wiki software. This could be mirrored from outside sites, or locally written.
 * Help typically used for the MediaWiki User's Guide, with the wikitext a frequently refreshed copy of the master version on Meta-Wikipedia, but with project-specific templates
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * Image:nnn
 * For descriptions of uploaded files. You shouldn't create these directly; they are created when you click the Upload file link in the toolbox.
 * Image images and other uploaded files, with image description pages (list: Special:Imagelist)
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * Media:nnn
 * Use this namespace to link to uploaded files directly, rather than through the description pages.
 * Media pseudo-namespace for images and other files themselves, as opposed to the image description pages; see also below
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * MediaWiki:nnn
 * Use this namespace to change the default system messages, See Help:MediaWiki_namespace on meta.
 * MediaWiki system messages (list: Special:Allmessages), editable by users, or if protected, by sysops
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * Project:nnn
 * Information about this wiki; i.e. policies that apply here. This namespace also has an alias, which is the name of the wiki installation.
 * Meta the project namespace for matters about the project, such as guidelines and discussions; see also the Help: namespace
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * Talk:nnn
 * Each page has a corresponding discussion page. This can be used for feedback/comments about that page, or other local notes that another group may want to associate with the page, without modifying the document directly, or for any other additional information to associate with the document.
 * Talk see Help:Talk page for this and the following odd-numbered namespaces
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * Template:nnn
 * This is used for meta-information that is to be transcluded into multiple documents, such as tags to mark the status of a document.
 * Template the default namespace for templates: the wikitext code refers to and includes the page Template:name
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * User:nnn
 * For personal notes. Each User has a corresponding user page for their own information.  Users can also create subpages, by using a / after their name.
 * User registered users (list: Special:Listusers) have a user homepage User:username (linked to by the system from user names in lists of edits, e.g. on page histories, and from signatures on talk pages); this and subpages of it can be used to present oneself, for project-related bookmarks, and for drafts, tests, and other working material. One can put here material to give oneself one-step access to it from any page in the same project, and one can put here links to give oneself two-step access to the link targets from any page in the same project as the user page. For users who do not log in, the same applies, with the IP as username. Dynamic IPs are a complication.
 * Examples: (needed, please)
 * User_talk:nnn
 * The discussion page on a user's page can be used for leaving messages. If this page is edited, the next time that user logs in they will see a box notifying them that they have new messages
 * User_talk
 * Examples: (needed, please)

... more - see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Namespace

What say, does anyone want to DISCUSS this rather than delete it? What will it take for us to have respect for contributor's information when we find it, and a functional organization, including standard site-wide tables of contents, index and glossary?


 * Thanks. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * You will be delighted to hear that Manual:Namespace now exists, and explains the concept of a namespace in MediaWiki parlance, while providing a technical overview and relevant links to similar documentation on this site. 86.134.91.23 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--

Peter Blaise responds:

Great, and thank you, Rob.

Now all we need are examples. For instance:
 * How to export or print all articles in a namespace or group of namespaces?
 * How to control who can see or edit the articles in a particular namespace or group of namespaces?
 * How to restrict search to include or exclude a particular namespace or group of namespaces?
 * How to auto-build a table of contents for all articles in a namespace or group of namespaces?
 * How to export and import one or more namespaces?
 * ... more?!?

In other words, what are the features and benefits of using the "namespace" function, and how (examples, please) can a wiki admin or wiki user take advantage of those features and benefits?


 * Thanks -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - Same needs for examples in understanding "categories" and "sub-pages".

Do not cross-post
Peter, please stop disturbing by double- and cross-posting long threads, by re-inserting removed texts on (random talk) pages and by very unusual (formal) reworking of other users' comments, immediately.

I'm watching your behaviour for some weeks now, first with a rather positive impression (see the above section, was "Thanks", now is User_talk:Peterblaise) and with the hope that you'll get used to the site and the work of its small community (what we do in which way) by and by. This seems not very likely at the moment :-/

In addition, if you want to improve your understanding of wikis/wiki communities in general and mediawiki.org in particular, please make yourself familiar with the basic conventions of this site; please read at least About this site, Project:PD help, Project:Current issues carefully.

Before adding your questions and/or comments directly to (article) texts written by other users, please consult the appropriate (article or user) talk page. If you don't understand the aim of the PD help project, refrain from editing the help namespace.

-- :Bdk: 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds:


 * Dear Bdk,


 * Thank for your efforts to support others here. And thank you for the links.
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/About_this_site
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:PD_help (What does the abbreviation "PD" mean?)
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Current_issues


 * How would I have found them if you didn't tell me? If they are important, is there a way to incorporate them into a welcoming presentation when anyone enters MediaWiki.org?  I'll get back to you on what I think of them - perhaps I'll edit them to make them as accurate as I can.  Thanks for pointing me to them.


 * Also, thanks for your offer to me (above - to stop "disturbing" and double posting, and so on), but I decline to give ownership of the open-source wiki-based MediaWiki.org support environment to you in exclusion of my contribution. I'm not sure what you mean by "...unusual (formal) reworking of other users' comments...", so you might provide a link or example to clarify what you mean.  Do you mean expanding small links to full kinks like "[1]" to "http://www.link.com/" ?  I'm not sure what's so wrong with that, as that's the only way I can see the links when I cut and paste and PDF and read the pages off line then go to another computer to type in the referred to links.  [1] gets me nowhere.  But, I suppose that if such abbreviated links are in someone's discussion comments, then I might instead leave them as is, and respond by adding my expanded links below their comment, as I show here above.  I've printed the articles and discussions and will read them next.


 * However, I read your comment above as threatening to somehow close the open source wiki MediaWiki.org environment to me if I do not do things your way or the way you think others have done things. Is that what you are saying?  Please clarify!  I'm sorry for you, but I insist on participating, just as you do, and I insist on participating in my own way, just as you choose to do.  You may think you are following "rules" but if your "rules" end up making MediaWiki.org hard to comprehend for the next person, then I hope you would consider the goals of the rule you are following.  However, unlike you, I don't want to delete other's hard work.  I strive to edit for clarity.  I do NOT delete entire contributions by other people, and you and some others have.  We use the MediaWiki.org resources differently.  There are two reasons I cut and paste one comment to more than one place:
 * (1) every MediaWiki.org resource is already split across many places, so asking for help in multiple places is perfectly in pattern and logical - perhaps you can take the hint to consolidate the divided resources, eh?
 * (2) people like you delete entire posts, so, if I put it in a couple of places, one copy at least may last long enough to garner a helpful response - I hope!


 * So, we disagree. Fine.  We disagree.  THAT is what open-source and wiki-based environments are designed to allow - DISAGREEMENT - and we all can still just get along!  In the war you are declaring against me, neither if us will win.  But, I hope to encourage you to use your powers NOT for deleting, but for honoring my efforts, and the good faith efforts of others who try to contribute what we can here, by respecting our contributions.  Can you make our contributions better?  Great - then edit them, move them (if you know a better place - and PLEASE include links so others may know of such places, too!), add to them, and even share your opposition to them - right there beside, or below, the person's who's contributions you are at odd with.  Cool.  That's what we're all here for - to SHARE the space and make it better for everyone, not to bump each other off and make it inaccessible to those with whom we disagree.


 * I resent you "watching my contributions" as if you feel obliged to approve or delete my participation in the MediaWiki.org environment. When the name changes to BdkWiki, I'll leave it up to you.  Until then, welcome me, make a functional connection with me, or leave me alone, and just get along with me.  I am a MediaWiki evangelist in my organization, why crush my attempts to get and give support right along with everyone else on MediaWiki.org?  Thank you. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 19:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * No, what I asked you to follow – the basic conventions of and for this site – is not at all about ownership, but about community and understanding of constructive collaboration!


 * You instead insist on adding your (more or less confusing, messy, and rather unhelpful) comments to the main and help namespaces, including your signature, "open questions" and personal claims. This is not and will not be acceptable, and the next attempt to do so might result in an unexpected break (yes, this is a warning).
 * If you are – for whatever reason – frustrated, this is no reason to add complaining comments all over the site and to keep other users busy with such stuff.
 * If you really want to help mediawiki.org, than get familiar with it and then start editing and actual improving, not the other way around. Especially, do not add questions and complaints to help pages if you are unsure – if needed or possible, add reviewed/confirmed content, that is in fact usable and helpful for readers.
 * Note: There's not much sense in this sort of complaining (like you did) within an open source project where nearly everyone is active on a voluntary basis. You can't expect, that everything that you aren't comfortable with will be fixed within days. If you want something to be fixed, than 1) ask others to help in a friendly and motivating way, or 2) learn and do it yourself.


 * Do not lie! The only things added by you that I deleted were duplicate (or completely misplaced redundant) and therefore highly pointless posts, e.g. this one. I did not delete "the last copy" in any case.
 * If you would edit like all other more active users here – only once per issue and on the appropriate pages – there would be no need for removal or deletion, of course. By "unusual edit format" I meant stuff like this and that (in addition see en.wikipedia where another user asked you the same in April).


 * PS1: The 3 links I gave you above are all linked from the main navigation. Just click the second link. Well, about this site is even linked from the recentchanges and several other interface pages.
 * PS2: If you would have read Project:PD help and/or the note that is placed on every page within the help namespace once, you would already know what PD stands for: public domain.
 * PS3: There's no CamelCase within Wikimedia, and lay off the caps lock, please.
 * -- :Bdk: 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * I don't really have much to add to Bdk's comments, except that I don't expect you would behave in this manner if you decided to visit your local community centre for the first time, or a new gym, or a film club. If you would like to contribute to our community (and it appears from your early postings that you could become a valuable member) then please try and learn a bit about what we are trying to do and the ways the community has already chosen to do it.  Most people don't seem to have any difficulty doing that. --HappyDog 01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds:
 * Yep, we disagree. You find my contributions "...confusing, messy, and rather unhelpful..." but that's EXACTLY the way I find the MediaWiki.org site!  =8^o  Let's work together to make it better.  However, better for you and better for me may be different - but that's okay, we can co-exist.  I'm just asking you to contribute rather than delete!  New adopters of MediaWiki software are not suffering from too much information, we are suffering from too little information, and disorganized information at that.  Let's not denigrate each other just because we learn differently.  Speaking of learning, I'm informed by a quote attributed to Albert Einstein:
 * "Example isn't just another way to teach. 
 * Example is the only way to teach."
 * -- Albert Einstein
 * I find a sore lack of examples here at MediaWiki.org. That "help:namespace" page is one.  Who cares if there's a list of default namespaces if there are no examples of how to use them?  Please put examples on MediaWiki.org wherever you roam today.  Try it for just one day - instead of deleting other people's work (deleting is so much easier to do than constructing, right?), try ONLY contributing examples for 24 hours.  I'm trying to construct and share examples, please join me.  Why not explain the features and benefits of "namespaces" - or share links that you think do that?  And, most importantly, include examples!  In other words, instead of trying to prevent me from participating because you think newbies like me are so messy, why not welcome me, and dive in, and get dirty once again, as you probably also had to when you were first learning, yourself?


 * I'll leave it to you to address what I find as myopic, subjective, and judgmental: calling my contributions names like, confusing, messy, and rather unhelpful ... highly pointless. All anyone can really say is "I (or we) personally experience your posts as confusing, messy, and rather unhelpful ... highly pointless."  It's a personal thing.  I, however, disagree.  And that's a personal thing, too.  If MediaWiki.org were so well organized, then why doesn't it speak to me?  For instance, on the front page, MediaWiki.org asks the audience to split itself into three categorizes:
 * Users
 * System Administrators
 * Developers
 * ... well, are those also split as 3 separate namespaces on MediaWiki.org? Does MediaWiki.org really have such a perfectly organized and divided structure?  I don't think so.  Type anything into the search bar and see what comes up - a jumble of all things supposedly intended for "Users", "System Administrators" and "Developers" alike - all in one undifferentiated bucket.  THAT's what MediaWiki software is all bout - a bit bucket.  However, everyone wants to organize their stuff, and you can help - by showing how MediaWiki and MediaWiki.org can be organized (or show how they ARE organized, if you believe them to be so).
 * Please explain how MediaWiki.org is organized.
 * Please explain the structure and organization of MediaWiki software .
 * Please explain the features and benefits of how " namespaces " work, include examples.
 * Please explain the features and benefits of how " categories " work, include examples.
 * Please explain the features and benefits of how sub-pages work, include examples.
 * If MediaWiki.org doesn't do this in a clear, succinct, and easily findable way, then I will try, and I ask you for help, not hindrance. If "namespaces" and "categories" and sub-pages do not really have the features and benefits required to organize the contents of a SQL database as presented by MediaWiki, then we need to know that.  I find communication to be a skill, an art, a science, continually expanding with each practitioner, always growing, never finished.  Our styles may differ, but can we agree on or select targets to address, and then either coordinate or at least stay out of each other's way?  The above list are targets I am researching now while addressing my customer's needs.  Help, please, if you can.


 * Actually, I sincerely doubt "Users" come here. I presume they stay on their own wikis.  Rather, I presume the "User" section is actually for "System Administrators" to copy and provide for their users.  Perhaps Users will be directed here to the User namespace (is there one?) to get contemporaneous User support?  I don't know - there is no overriding scheme I can see to MediaWiki.org contents, actually.  If there is one, please either explain it to me, or cause the site to explain it to me.  Otherwise, allow me to try to figure one out and try to lend a hand in providing such a clearly visible structure.


 * Anyway, I find my posts helpful to me. I hope they are potentially useful to others like me - newbies to MediaWiki, but oldies in the computer universe. I also find my posts to be imperfect, that is, in need of evolutionary development.  I want to revisit them and enhance them just as I do all the other imperfect (human?) contributions on MediaWiki.org.  Think about it - if anything here were perfect, why would anyone have any questions or even need to come here?  We'd all just be happy as we use our perfectly functioning MediaWiki software, merrily as we roll along.  But that's not the case, and singling me out because you feel uncomfortable with my struggle and my contribution doesn't help anything, but tries to maintain the status quo.


 * Let's try to grow beyond the status quo. Let's admit the MediaWiki.org is in need of everyone pitching in, including newbies, and I suggest that that will happen best when we don't fight each other, and don't waste time deleting each other's work.  Let's add and build MediaWiki.org, instead.  Are we going to have differences of opinion?  Sure.  And that's all your assessment of my posts is - opinion.  If your ideas are better, let them stand side by side with my ideas, and may the best ideas win in the (hopefully) ever-growing audience's minds.


 * Look, I don't know how to resolve this "dispute" any more than you do. I don't know how to motivate you to contribute, contribute, contribute, and stop deleting, any more than you know how to motivate me to leave things as they are and supposedly only make changes after I learn (heck, If I COULD learn from MediaWiki.org as it stands, why would I make changes?!?).


 * Point, counter point:
 * - HappyDog, I find analogies fall apart rather quickly. Wikis are intended to be user-built sites, so comparing them to a physical town community center (tax built, professionally sub-contracted, legal rule/regulation domain, and so on) seems odd.  But, hey, I clean up messes I find at my local community center too, and clean and polish the white board, and otherwise pitch in.  And I'm not hew here - I've been struggling since February 2007 (4 months).  Should we put on a time restriction or have newbies pass a wiki-driver's test before allowing us to edit articles, limiting us to discussions only until a certain community standard is proved to have been attained?  Do you think I'll agree with the (lack of) organization at MediaWiki.org after ... how long?  After I have how much additional MediaWiki savvy?  My point is that even when I attain master wiki status in anybody's estimation, I'll still want to grow MediaWiki.org to be the best it can be for ME and my perception of my customer's needs.  Isn't that all anybody asks, here?  Isn't that what you and Bdk think you are doing, also?
 * - Bdk, I have no idea what CamelCase is, and I have Caps Lock defeated on my keyboard, using bold, italics, underline, (shift)CAPS, indent, color, bullets and so on for emphasis and visual structure exactly as I have seen them in my years of reading. I prefer Rolling Stone magazine to Wired magazine, and I don't do text messaging (all smalls).  If you think I have contributed anything that is formatted so as to be unreadable, even cryptic to you, please share an example so I can tell what you are talking about.
 * - Back to you, HappyDog: If we were at a local community center, I bet we'd have no problem and get along just fine. It's only though emails and posting like these that I find people taking unintended umbrage at each other's contributions. Really, all I want to do is support my customers and make MediaWiki a successful resource for them.  Good for my customers, good for MediaWiki, good for everyone.
 * Sincerely, -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 12:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * You might want to have a look at CamelCase … -- :Bdk: 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--

Peter Blaise responds:

Okay, let's get sidetracked on CalemCase (definition: typing words with capital letters in the middle of non-capital letters, looking like the hump on a camel). When you say "There's no CamelCase within Wikimedia," I thought you were trying to tell me that the MediaWiki program does not honor CamelCase as a program instruction to do something special, the way it honors multiple ' (quote) marks or multiple [ (brackets) or the way it honors words joined with a : (colon) as in en:CamelCase. Since you seem averse to telling me what it is that I have been typing that you are referring to, I will guess. Let's play 20 questions. I'm down to 18 or so left. Do you object to me writing MediaWiki and prefer that I write Mediawiki? Is THAT it? Please note that at http://www.wikimedia.org/ I see all type styles in use by the mother company:
 * W IKIPEDI A (combination of large and small caps)
 * WikiBooks (using ... CAMEL CASE!!!)
 * Wiktionary, and Wikiquote (using capital first letter, the rest smalls)
 * WIKIMEDIA, WIKINEWS, and WIKIVERSITY (using all caps)

... your point? I think you are spouting your own personal preference as if it were a universal rule, law, or program function, eh?

FYI (for your information), I have been typing so-called "CamelCase" for years to assist my customers in understanding and reminding themselves of what to them was meaningless computer geek jargon otherwise:
 * ChkDsk - told users the two root words - Check and Disk
 * FDisk - helped them remember Fixed Disk
 * ... and so on.

Neither Microsoft nor the DOS command interpreter demanded or expected the CamelCase. But, by capitalizing the first letter of each root word inside invented compound words, I was helping customers understand the source and meaning of the jargon they were asked to manage. In the novice user community, with no desires to become jargonistas, I frequently got an, "Ooooooh, so THAT'S what the gobbledygook means! Thank you so much, you've resolved months of guessing!"

Bdk, imagine a world where you are not the only audience. =8^o


 * Thanks. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * You repeatedly wrote WikiMedia within texts you added to the main and help namespace (well, I don't mind how you spell words and names within your comments on talk pages).
 * I already gave you the link to this page on the Support Desk nearly three weeks ago, see there. So you should know about the differences between MediaWiki (the software this site is about, its name is written with CamelCase) and Wikimedia (the Foundation that hosts and supports this site, written without CamelCase, not only for clarity reasons).
 * Again, there is no CamelCase within "Wikimedia" (it's a trademark, and there's no point in writing it wrong intentionally). And no, this is not a personal preference. -- :Bdk: 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--

You say Wikimedia, and I say potato
Peter Blaise responds:

Thanks for clarifying, Bdk. From now on I'll write "Wikimedia Foundation" when I mean "Wikimedia Foundation", and nix the briefer "WikiMedia" ... though ... "Wikimedia Foundation" themselves use the briefer "wikimedia," as in "wikimedia.org"! See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_brand_survey#Current_projects for their trademark registrations that I submitted on 31 May 2007 to the Wikimedia Foundation Brand Survey as a reference in just case anyone wants to look 'em up and read 'em for themselves. Caps and smalls are totally irrelevant to the trademark registrations, by the way. It's not as if I personally can go off and register "wIkImEdIa" and claim it as mine just because I type it different. Trademark wise, they're all the same, and they all belong to the Wikimedia Foundation.

You seem to love to use disappearing links! Lemme see what these are:
 * "... I already gave you the link to [ http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terms&oldid=510858 this page ] on the Support Desk nearly three weeks ago, see [ http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Project:Support_desk&diff=prev&oldid=97801 there ] ..."

Well, let's see what you actually wrote "there":


 * … and, not to forget, have a look at meta:Glossary or its "old" shorter version to complete the confusion ;-) --:Bdk: 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That explains it - it's those dang short, disappearing links again! Let's see what your offering looks like when printing, or even selecting "Printable version":


 * … and, not to forget, have a look at meta:Glossary or its "old" shorter version (http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terms&oldid=510858) to complete the confusion ;-) --:Bdk: 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Still missin' at last one link! When I read your offering, I see no links, and when I print your offering, I don't always get a copyable link I can try elsewhere after reading and red-penning the printout. You like small, disappearing links, fine. You win some of your audience, and you loose some. I like complete visible links, and I suppose some people's eyes glaze over at what they see as gibberish. I win some, and loose some, also, I guess. Is there a perfect world where one way of sharing suits all commers?

But, I see that even you use the word "wikimedia" too (as in "wikimedia.org") without adding the differentiating "... foundation." The Wikimedia Foundation uses it that way - and that's their trademark - without the differentiating "... foundation"! So, maybe I should keep using is as they do, after all, and keep differentiating it from MediaWiki (the software) some other way. So, there are at least three places to search for support on MediawIki software:
 * MediaWiki (the software): http://www.mediawiki.org/
 * Wikimedia (the Foundation): http://www.wikimedia.org/
 * Wikipedia (a project): http://www.wikipedia.org/

... and various mailing list tech support sites:
 * mediawiki-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
 * wikien-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
 * commons-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
 * wikitech-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


 * Thanks for caring to make yourself clear. Me too. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But we are a community!
"HappyDog, I find analogies fall apart rather quickly. Wikis are intended to be user-built sites, so comparing them to a physical town community center (tax built, professionally sub-contracted, legal rule/regulation domain, and so on) seems odd."


 * Well, only if you want to extend the analogy that far. My point is that we are a community and have our existing practices, conventions, history and idiosyncracies.  If you think our practices are wrong then you need to first understand (a) how they came into existence (is it the work of one person's whim, or did it arise after months of community discussion?) and (b) why they exist (for example, your comments about Help:Namespace clearly shows that you do not understand what belongs in the Help: namespace on this wiki.  This is explained in the links Bdk posted for you, but which you are appear not to have read).

"But, hey, I clean up messes I find at my local community center too, and clean and polish the white board, and otherwise pitch in."


 * If the convention in your local youth center is to leave things on the whiteboard until closing time so everyone gets a chance to see it, cleaning the white board would be a mistake. The point I am making here is that sometimes there are reasons that things are as they are.  This is a wiki - we will never have a problem with someone 'fixing' something that isn't actually broken (it can always be reverted), but we do have a problem with people repeating the error once they have been told about it and refusing to listen to us when we explain why we do things in a certain way.

"Should we put on a time restriction or have newbies pass a wiki-driver's test before allowing us to edit articles, limiting us to discussions only until a certain community standard is proved to have been attained?"


 * No - that would completely defeat the point. However, when we engage newbies in discussions in order to help them understand a bit about how we work, we expect them to co-operate rather than being inflammatory, and to learn from their mistakes, rather than claiming that the "system is wrong" repeating them.  If the system is really wrong, then discuss it in the appropriate place and see what the community consensus is.

"Do you think I'll agree with the (lack of) organization at MediaWiki.org after ... how long?


 * That is based on the assumption that the wiki is not going to change. It is a wiki.  It is going to change.  Compare the current wiki with how it looked 6 months ago... there is a _lot_ more structure, a _lot_ more content and a _lot_ better navigation.  Your problem is that you think that MW.org was birthed into existence in its current state and is not going to change unless you holler.

"My point is that even when I attain master wiki status in anybody's estimation, I'll still want to grow MediaWiki.org to be the best it can be for ME and my perception of my customer's needs. Isn't that all anybody asks, here? Isn't that what you and Bdk think you are doing, also?"


 * No - we are trying to make it the best it can be for everyone. If you are approaching MW.org as something that should be moulded to you and your customers needs, then you are at the wrong wiki.

The above quoted comments were by PeterBlaise, the indented comments were added by HappyDog 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

--

AND we are a community

Peter Blaise responds:

Hi again, HappyDog,

Point counter-point:

YOU prefer to learn how a community works when you join others. Cool. That is your preference, and it may (or may not) effect your behavior. Me too. Exactly. However, are we just put off by each other's style, as if style were a rule? I see that some people present themselves in society by saying, "Oh, no, I'm fine," when someone offers them a drink, and some people may throw open the refrigerator and ask, "What's everyone want to drink?" No one's wrong. We each may have preferences, and we all here seem to be enjoying the exploration of how to share. That's a good thing! And that's a Wiki thing.

Oopps, when I said "clean up the white board" I meant to really clean it, you know, where people sort of erase it and it's still smudged, or they use indelible marker instead of eraseable markers, or people put tape all over it and don't clean it off. That's what I mean by "I clean the white board" - and automotive polish is great for cleaning and resurfacing an abused white board. I didn't mean for you to think I meant "erase the white board" - that's Bdk's job! ;-) Hahahah.  No, what I meant was I'm here to support everyone and anyone as best I can, without waiting.  Have you seen how many questions have gone unanswered here for MONTHS?  Doesn't anybody report back in with results of subsequent efforts?  Geesh!

Just because anyone reads the same references does not mean everyone "gets it" the exact same way. I plead alternative viewpoint and interpretation, not ignorance, not stupidity, and not plain ol' ordinary contrariness. I have read the references. And still I hunger for more, more, more. Maybe, just like my own contributions, the references you would have me read and re-read are just so inadequate after a fashion.

Please accept the fact that my contributions to MediaWiki.org are part of the growth you claim that you want and that you seem to want me to wait around for. Hey, it's a WIKI! Why wait? Pitch in and edit every page! I am. How about you?

Good luck making anything perfect for "everyone", if that is your goal. Me? I'm happy to move forward, trying to satisfy one person at a time, starting with myself. Like they say on the airliners, "First put on your own oxygen mask, then you can help other people." I imagine it's an unrewarding challenge for you to ask "everyone" if they are satisfied with your support offering, to ask if they find your service offering appropriate. Now, for me, with the "one person at a time" approach, I can always ask that one person if they are getting something of value out of the relationship. Funny how I accept and support you and your goals on MediaWiki.org, yet you somehow feel overwhelming nonacceptance and an unwillingness to support me. What was a wiki all about again?


 * Thanks for sharing. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahahahaha, this is quite the debate...
Ahahahaha, this is quite the debate, and you've handled it well, Peter. Good reading; thank god for contributions, otherwise I'd have no fun talk pages to read! (And further to the point, I found this page while trying to find MediaWiki support information. As you may have guessed, I still have yet to find what I'm looking for.) -- Randall00 19:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds: Oh no, thank you, Randall! Sometimes I think I am my only audience.  I really appreciate your taking the time to make a note that you read somethign here.  I hope that as I make things here at MediaWiki.org useful to me, that others will find them useful also.
 * Actually, I believe the customer is best served when the customer has no awareness of the service their are getting as a "service". I remember contacting a computer customer of mine after 3 years with no calls from them, and I asked,
 * "So, who's supporting your computers now?"
 * Surprised at me, they said,
 * "Why, YOU are! Aren't you?
 * We haven't called because nothing's
 * gone wrong, so ... thanks!"
 * In other words, I did good, and I supported them well enough for them to not need me any more. I recall one customer who refused to buy a computer service contract who said,
 * "Computers are like Toyotas - they never break."
 * THAT is the goal, to make MediaWiki "never break". Until then, we're just gonna have to get used to fixin' things.  It's really counterproductive to blame the customer when MediaWiki breaks.  It's also counterproductive to blow off people who come here to help while complaining that they are overwhelmed and need help supporting people.  By "they" see some of the names in special:version.  I think these people are doing a wonderful job, and I understand their frustration at having overwhelming numbers of people adopting their "baby".  Now comes the after-sale support.  You think development is hard?  Support is a killer!  As I've noted with many suddenly popular products and services,
 * "Success is our only failure!"
 * Thank you Randall, for the link to http://www.musicianwar.com/ - sadly it stands out like a sore thumb as one of a few blue links in a field of red at User:Randall00. I loved seeing and hearing all those guitar aficionados.  However, my grammar school dream of becoming a rock star has faded, and I just sold my high school dream of a guitar, an 20-year old original Ovation Legend Cutaway with OP24 (the first easy-to-play acoustic with steel strings and inbuilt piezo pickups and EQ).  I figure that if I'm ever going to revisit my music, I'll use MIDI, so off go the heirlooms to pay the rent!
 * Keep up the energy, Randall. Thanks again!  -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 10:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PS - What are you "looking for", MediaWiki wise?

--


 * The trouble with making elaborate user pages across multiple MediaWiki platforms is that it's neither entertaining nor worthwhile to edit each individual one to point to valid, blue links...however! That said, a fully functional version of User:Randall00 can be found at the English Wikipedia right here. Nevertheless, I'm rather glad that musicianwar.com stood out amongst the other links, as it is probably one of the more entertaining branches of my user page. My own songs are on there somewhere, too, but it's been many years since I've had the time and inclination to be satisfied with any of my musical projects enough to confidently pit them against the creative efforts of others. -- Randall00 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds: You write (paraphrase), "...pit your my musical projects against the creative efforts of others..."  Against?  Is it just us MEN or us manly-types?  Is it all "hosing down the decks with testosterone"? (a quote from the movie Lost in Space)  We seem to be doing the same as noted above in our arduous dialogs here - we seem to be trying to best each other rather than build a cooperative enterprise. Where do we go to learn to support each other, to say things like, "wow, it looks like you had a blast creating that song, can you tell us more about it?"  Or, "wow, it looks like you're having a heck of a time figuring out all this wiki stuff.    How can I help?"  (See the book, "How can I Help?" by Ram Dass and Paul Gorman.) -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 12:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Well, I'm not gonna lie, I'm not quite sure what you mean about the men/manly-types bit, unless that's just an idle observation at how naturally aggressive and warmongering most men are, even in the context of something as simple as sharing our creative musical efforts. If an arbitrary desire for confilct is a manly characteristic, then perhaps I'm not as much of a man as I might've been led to believe. In fact, I dislike conflict and argument so much that I specifically avoid trying to best people at anything and prefer to be a quiet observer. I certainly hope you don't feel as though I'm trying to best you in any way; I'm in the business of accurate communication and the closest and best emulation of that on the internet lies in inline-links, formatting conventions for emphasis and a competent command of the language. I wouldn't blame you for thinking that, though, considering how incredibly scarce that kind of approach to internet communication is.


 * In terms of Musician War, I wish nothing more than the opportunity to post my own songs up individually and listen to the users offer their insight and feedback on my work. However, having access to an enthusiastic listener base doesn't mean that uploading a song to their server is going to elicit any actual exposure. The system is built on a "war" platform because not many people will listen to a song for no reason and since everyone loves war, well hey! let's make a musical war to get people to hear our tracks! And it works, so although I disagree with the base principle, you do have to roll over and accept the standards from time to time. I suspect the MediaWiki soldiers that keep shutting you down are probably of the opinion that you don't understand that concept, which obviously isn't the case since you are pursuing a goal that would, in its ideal form, help all people find what they need in a streamlined and standardized sort of way. -- Randall00 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds: In our song swap group, we had to lay out ground rules, otherwise the "guys" seemed to shred any song to bits, comparing it to anything and everything they'd heard before that they thought was much better.  The women always seemed to say, "Oh, I like that one just like it is!"  So, we agreed that we'd ask the person, "What kind of help do you want?"  And if they said, "I need help marketing the song," then critiquing it or rewriting it was out, and all we could do is offer our insights on marketing channels that might respond.  If someone wanted harmony, then critiquing the lyrics was out.  I always wanted someone to take my song and work with it as I was tired of advice, and I was tired of the song, and wanted to spend no more time with it as I was deaf to it anymore.  No one really wanted to put down their own songs to team up with me, so I dropped out after a few years.  I was happy to live in their songs and make a version that was their's and mine, but they didn't like their baby after I'd played with it.  Too bad.
 * I remember getting the Joni Mitchel "Blue" songbook before I heard the album, and not reading music, I wrote my own music to her lyrics. I like my versions of her songs now better than her's that I heard much later.  Maybe that's a truism - that we tend to like the first version of a song we know because it's familiar, and subsequent versions are awkward to our ear.
 * I meant nothing personal about the testosterone comment. I grew up with a battle of the bands show at school dances.  One reason I never performed was because someone had to loose and be denigrated.  There was no winner in that case.  For me, performing is all heart and soul and fun and entertaining to see anyone pour their energy out for their audience.  Hey, is that what I'm trying to do in service support all these years - get applause for my performance?  Hmm ...
 * I'm having trouble selling my Korg Concert 800 MIDI controller console piano (full weighted 88-key size and mechanism with after touch), because it's 16-polyphony is not enough nowadays.  Hey, I only have 10 fingers, 16 simultaneous notes SHOULD be enough, right?  ~300Euros/$400US, but no one in the US understand it's beauty.  It's a PIANO, with all Yamaha Grand Piano sound samples, a REAL piano keyboard.  It's as hard to play as a real piano is, because it's a real piano.  But it's also as lovely to play as a real piano is because it's a real piano.  And it's MIDI, to boot.  Oh well, maybe I can next try to sell my Baldwin guitar (yes, a Baldwin guitar, no, not a Baldwin piano, though they seem to be owned by the Gibson guitar company now after all!).
 * That's me - using odd products in odd ways. Just like my MediaWiki experience, right?  ;-)  -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 01:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Fatal error", but valiant admin lives to tell the tale

 * My current MediaWiki gripe surrounds the fact that it stopped functioning overnight and I can't figure out why. There I was, editing away at www.et-cet-era.ca/wiki/ and everything was working fine....then I went to bed. The next morning, lo and behold, I get a lovely error message that says:

Fatal error: Call to undefined method User::newfromsession in /home/randall0/public_html/wiki/includes/StubObject.php on line 130


 * I did not change any of the server-side files and was only making changes to the wiki as an editor from the time that it was working to the time it stopped. I'm not gonna lie, I don't really know how to interpret a "Fatal error" message like this and am pretty much clueless as to how I can fix it. I checked Line 130 in StubObject.php, but there's nothing immediately wrong with it as far as I can tell. It's just frustrating that there was no explanation for the sudden error! If I did change something somehow, I wish I knew what it was. -- Randall00 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds: Wow. On the one hand, I wonder if the database indexing is corrupt or out of sync.  ..\maintenance\*.* has some routines that may help, including a few rebuild*.php files that may help, and ..\maintenance\storage\checkStorage.php looks like a fixer/reporter.  But, "This script must be run from the command line" so find a command prompt and run: php checkstorage.php.  If you can't run from a command line at your ISP, how would you run it?  But, go ahead - I challenge you to find information on "maintenance" at MediaWiki.org!  What ticks me off is that there is NO page for the word "maintenance" in MediaWiki.org, not even a disambiguation reference, and the "maintenance" category is bereft of any reference to the MediaWiki directory called "maintenance" which contains 291 apparently otherwise undocumented or anonymous files.  Geesh!  And when I try to crate a response-page for each major vocabulary word that appears somewhere in MediaWiki, "someone" deletes it*1, as if no help is better than trying something against their hidden scheme for a perfect future ... someday when "they" get the time to do it "perfectly" themselves.  At least there are at least 147 general responses to a search for the word "maintenance", so I guess we can read, read, read.  Good luck, and let us know how it goes.


 * * Note1: this was the response to my attempted disambiguation page for Toolserver:
 * Does anybody else want to try to create disambiguation pages (index*2) for MediaWiki vocabulary words? I feel pretty uninvited to help.
 * Does anybody else want to try to create disambiguation pages (index*2) for MediaWiki vocabulary words? I feel pretty uninvited to help.


 * * Note2: Google.com define:index = "... In publishing, an index is a guide to the contents of a book, publication, or multimedia collection. It is prepared for the reader, to help the reader more quickly and easily find information. An index is not simply a list of the major terms in a publication. Rather, it is an organized map of the contents of a book, arranged to make the contents clearly visible and comprehensible to the reader..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index(Publishing)


 * That's all I was trying to do. Thanks.  -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 12:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Hehe, the quest for frequently answered-answers continues! Thanks for letting me know about those maintenance functions, though; I wasn't even aware they existed (imagine that!) so I will definitely try a few them to figure out what's going on and report back with the results. But currently it's a hot, summer day and I think I'll just head outside for something other than fixed-width programming in a Notepad file. -- Randall00 23:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds: So, you also are noticing that MediaWiki words like maintenance show up in red because there's no prime page for them, eh?  I managed to get them to keep and build a namespace page, but they wouldn't let me expand it's contents to be more wordy and less ambiguous, nor to seek links for the other MediaWiki terms referenced on that page.  Perhaps they are depending on discussion pages to allow us to develop our thoughts before creating article pages?  I guess that's a way to grow the MediaWiki.org site.  Slowly.  Painfully.  But, oh so clean!  ;-)  And we must keep a tidy site, even if newbies find it hard to navigate.  Ooops - there's another red word!  Heck, even blue is red!  =8^o.  Look, folks, no disrespect intended, I just wanna expand the site to contain everything the experts know AND be easily findable by someone who does not already know it all!
 * Let us know how you fare when you come back indoors, Randall. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 08:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

--

Alas, maintenance scripting has failed me. This mediawiki thing has been particularly problematic for me because I did a whole bunch of user-side work to the wiki prior to its sudden decision to fail. Maybe I'll try and pull up at that list of $wg- variables and try and learn something about MySQL databases...there must be a way to install new MediaWiki software over top of an existing database, considering that the database was created through the very same software. Egh, this is going to be a headache. -- Randall00 13:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Top 25 Things Every Content Management Vendor Should Know About What their Customers Want

 * Peter Blaise says: How do we feel MediaWiki meets (or not) the following suggestions? If an extension is required, PLEASE suggest it next to the target point.  Thanks! -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

--

From http://www.ewriteonline.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/4,


 * #. Numbered headlines by Leslie O'Flahavan
 * Subsequent comments by Peter Blaise (and others?)


 * 1. Be compatible with common office applications.
 * Microsoft Word Extension:Word2MediaWikiPlus
 * Other source import?
 * any BULK import tool?


 * 2. Enable users to format their content without going into the code.
 * Although MediaWiki has a Bold/Italics and so on tool bar, and wiki markup is called "light" (PCMagazine), it's still code!
 * WYSIWYG What You See is What you get editing? Extension:FCKeditor


 * 3. Enable truly nontechnical users to manage their content.
 * Maybe a vote/poll feature is needed to collect end user satisfaction? I'm a seriously technical user with dozens of years of successful experience managing content for myself and thousands of customers, and I have a bear of a time figuring out let alone implementing any kind of structure on a MediaWiki installation.  And forget automation of that structure!  Does anyone have any ideas for how to grow MediaWiki in this direction?


 * 4. Include web-based administration tools.
 * Ooops - exit and edit *.php, *.css, *.inc, *.sql and so on files!


 * 5. Assign a high-level administrator role to content administrators too.
 * I guess this is supposedly the intended difference between a MediaWiki user group and permission levels, which are highly tunable:
 * sysop, who controls the functioning and maintenance of a MediaWiki installation
 * bureaucrat who supposedly controls users more than anything else, but we don't know for sure!


 * 6. Expect common meta data, and build it in.
 * "...Page author, owner, and last updated date, for example, should be included in all page templates..."
 * I think this data is buried in various MediaWiki resources.


 * 7. Have a familiar interface.
 * Thanks to Wikipedia.org, MediaWiki has a vastly popular example where people can try out some of it's features.


 * 8. Acknowledge and work with variations on the approval process.
 * This is a challenge here at MediaWiki where someone wrote after deleting someone else's contribution, "This is NOT Wikipedia," as if the open contribution concept is somehow inappropriate for MediaWiki itself, the prime source of collaboration software ...


 * 9. Develop a licensing structure and interface based on types of users.
 * I'm not sure this applies, but as a consultant, it makes sense to plan on billing for both real cost of selling our support, and also the real value of that support. IN other words, if 1,000 people benefit from an hour of our time, then it stands to reason that that hour is worth more than the same hour spent helping only one person.  Of course, there are variables if the one person is a corporate president with much money to spend, and the 1,000 users are field volunteer in a charity organization.


 * 10. Develop for the broadest possible audience.
 * Perhaps THAT is what I am trying to encourage here - opening up the MediaWiki.org experience to be more than a haven for coders.

--

... more later. There are 25 points total, and they all are provocative and worth of consideration, I think! -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Well, they're worth consideration for MediaWiki, yes, but they sure don't help me any. As much as I'd like to spread my substantial work initiative across into writing support documentation, I'm far too busy with my own stuff (not to mention trying to get the engine with which to do that stuff up and running. I recognize that there has to be people to do that, but I'm just not one of them. I admire your efforts; with all the hoops I've had to jump through so far (and still not having solved anything), I can't believe you're still trying. I mean, I've gone through all kinds of problems with my web host during the installation version just to get my server upgraded to the proper versions of PHP, etc., THEN I took weeks and weeks on the customization front where this page was oh-so-helpful, ultimately finishing it by trial and error. THEN I had this wiki/database breakdown and came back here posting in every support page I could find, THEN I went looking on the internet for others with a similar problem to no avail, THEN I came back here looking for other wiki users who maybe knew something about it, THEN I found your discussion with HappyDog on improving documentation, THEN I came here and NOW I'm a subscriber and participant in a commentary that isn't going too far because before anyone can improve the documentation, we first have to convince MediaWiki administration not to delete pages just because they don't conform to the uhh...policy of how support articles should look! So again, I admire your persistence, but I don't really believe a solid Top 25 list of consumer relations ethics is making much headway...if only you had some other choice. -- Randall00 19:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds: TAKE A BREATH, man! Try the Lamaze method of panic control!
 * Sometimes I think that I know too many (but surely not all) grammatical conventions and I get the urge to be rebellious and break the rules. I liken it to improvised jazz solos where the musician specifically plays unusual, off-colour notes and arhythmic sequences just to illustrate that no matter how well you know music theory, there's no sense learning it all if you can't learn to defy it! -- Randall00 20:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly, everyone has a different environment for their MediaWiki installation platform, so all troubleshooting is a crapshoot! I think you have to slowly take inventory and build a checklist from scratch, a support recipie that is yours alone.  Then audit it fro the ground up.  However, as you have seen, "a working PHP" may not be enough of a specification, and even the same version can be tweaked to work or fail for reasons a newbie cannot be expected to fathom.  Argh!  Like me, however, why not build an inventory on your user talk page at User_talk:Randall00 and make it a reference for your workign system.  I should do the same on a sub page here - here's a start.  Everyone should do this on their user_talk:username page:

Windows XP Pro Apache2 MediaWiki: 1.10.0 PHP: 5.2.2 (apache2handler) MySQL: 5.0.41-community-nt Extensions

Special pages LastUserLogin (version 1.0.6) Displays the last time a user logged in Justin G. Cramer, Danila Ulyanov, Thomas Klein Parser hooks

DynamicPageList2 (version 1.2.1) based on DynamicPageList, featuring many improvements IlyaHaykinson, Amgine,Unendlich, Cyril Dangerville,Algorithmix

Subpage List 2 automaticaly creates a list of the subpages of a page Martin Schallnahs, Rob Church Extension functions wfLastUserLogin, wfUpdateUserTouched, wfDynamicPageList3, wfDynamicPageList2 and efSubpageList Parser extension tags

,, and Parser function hooks

dpl, int, ns, urlencode, lcfirst, ucfirst, lc, uc, localurl, localurle, fullurl, fullurle, formatnum, grammar, plural, numberofpages, numberofusers, numberofarticles, numberoffiles, numberofadmins, numberofedits, language, padleft, padright, anchorencode, special and defaultsort

Hooks Hook name Subscribed by

LanguageGetMagic wfDynamicPageList3_Magic LoadAllMessages wfDynamicPageListSPloadMessages visited from 10.113.9.106 Retrieved from "http://etc00322/mediawiki/index.php/Special:Version"


 * You're probably right; everyone should, next to no one will. But now that you mention it, I will get around to doing that. Probably on a subpage though (User:Randall00/specs or something) since I'm unreasonably choosy about keeping things uniform and in their correctly titled places. Or maybe just a User:Randall00/troubleshooting page would be a good enough place to store all my person MediaWiki gripes. Thankfully, at least the MediaWiki metadata and search functionality is pretty good, so perhaps making a page with all my own errors on it might actually get some hits from equally-frustrated installers. -- Randall00 20:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Randall, I have two goals or expectations here:
 * 1 - To get my own systems supportable and working
 * 2 - To get MediaWiki, even against their will, to be an avenue of support that is appropriate for the next wave of adopters of MediaWiki software (and it AIN'T coders or geeks!).
 * I have 4 wikis running at the moment and I'm about to double that. I crash something every day.  I am working on an Intranet, so I have no ISP to argue with.  However, I have more than 10,000 existing computers to tiptoe around when setting up and inserting a wiki into the mix.  I hope to share anything I learn in trade for others doing likewise.  I also hope someday that MediaWiki "residents" (an IBM term for authors of their in-house Redwiki) will relax a bit a recognize the wonderful mess is a GOOD thing when newbies contribute, all full of energy, rather than slapping down anyone who seems to present themsleves differently.  Grow or die.  Novell went where after dominating the server software market?  MediaWiki's choices are ...
 *  3 - Use and reuse/repurpose anything I contribute here.
 * Really, I hope others edit my stuff and make it better so I can bring it back home. I have NO ONE helping me in-house.  MediaWiki is my outhouse, then, I suppose.
 * I'm out for the weekend. I'll pick up again later. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Project talk:Deletion
I have removed your irrelevant comment from Project talk:Deletion. Please do not spam the wiki. --HappyDog 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise responds: Thanks, chief!  Irrelevant spam?!?  I thought talk pages were for dialog.  See also http://www.greeningofindustry.org/dialog.pdf:


 * ''... Dialogue is an intentional conversation where new ways of thinking can emerge.
 * ''It is a creative process of collective inquiry and learning where mental models and
 * ''underlying assumptions become transparent.
 * ''Participants in dialogue are engaged in a quest for mutual understanding. It is a
 * ''generative conversation during which people willingly hold an open mind and intend to
 * practice learning how to think together…to potentially discover something anew...


 * While I appreciate you may not like my comments, I put it to you that we only disagree - and that's what the talk pages are for: to let people discuss and air their differing viewpoints, and let others visiting the pages see the dialog so far, and not only be informed, but also be able to add their own contribution in light of the greater, complete context. One significant reason to leave the contents of discussion/talk pages is to encourage subsequent contributors to know what's been discussed already.  Deleting anything from the talk pages merely dumbifies MediaWiki.  Rather than get in a tussle with you, I suggest that you yourself restore my contribution to that talk page, and then put in the appropriate effort to engage and intelligently respond to me there, or let others comment as they see fit.


 * To wit, here's the specific dialog I was responding to:


 * Project talk:Deletion
 * What is acceptable on user pages
 * ... the real rule is of course "Don't be a dick" ... - David Gerard 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC) ...
 * And, what's been deleted:
 * And, what's been deleted:
 * And, what's been deleted:


 * Peter Blaise responds: I find "Don't be a dick" offensive and totally inappropriate for ANY discussion between any parties anywhere, let alone a MediaWiki software documentation site. If MediaWiki is to grow, we must expand our audience, and that means expanding our intellectual capacity. I find it especially pointed to read No_personal_attacks. When we respond with "don't be a dick", that's not setting any example of an alternative; instead, we are diving into the same realm of unacceptable behavior to which we are supposedly objecting! I suggest we all read the following link before responding to anyone we think are "dicks", PLEASE! A small quote:
 * http://www.webworksite.com/articles/article4.php
 * "...Instead of taking offense ... thank each
 * and every one of the people who take the time to
 * complain about something on your site that didn't
 * work for them. For every complaint you receive, you
 * can bet there are at least dozens of visitors who
 * have thought the same thing but didn't take the time
 * ''to tell you about it [and never return!]. And, if no
 * one tells you, you have missed the opportunity to
 * fix it for everyone. Don't shoot the messenger and
 * alienate the very individuals who obviously like
 * your site enough to want to help you improve it for
 * them... thereby improving it for everyone else..."
 * So, instead of saying, "don't be a dick" we can learn to say, "thank you," whenever we bump into a surprising, provocative contribution. May I also suggest we sit back for a little while, and let our own artificial emotive energy resolve itself - self soothe. Let's not be in such a hurry to pounce on other people because of the way they contribute. Let's not willfully ignore the content of their contributions. I've noticed that the more any one of us makes ourselves "the police", and negates the contributions of others, the more we get cranky, self-frustrated, and self-immolated. Let's cool off, back off, and let the vacuum of our (benevolent, please) inattention get filled by other volunteers, like me and so many others who have so much to offer, but get slammed, and go away, never to return! Argh!
 * I think there's a truism to the fact that wikis grow most when so-called "authority" and security are invisible, where anonymity is not an impediment to immediate contribution, and patience, tolerance, acceptance, and equivalent consideration are a well practiced virtues.
 * - Click! Love and hugs, Peter Blaise peterblaise 11:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * - Click! Love and hugs, Peter Blaise peterblaise 11:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * HappyDog, merely calling my contribution "irrelevant spam" is summarial, and is NOT responsive to it's contents. Please, USE the "talk" pages to air your own alternative viewpoint, rather than using "delete" to quash other contributor's viewpoints!  Please restore my contribution to that talk page.  Thank you!


 * -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 13:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)




 * I understand English. I find your tone incredibly insulting, and largely off the point (which is not uncommon for your page-long responses).  Your response seemed to be directed at my comment, not to David Gerard's, and even if it had been it was not relevant or useful to the discussion at hand, so it was rightfully deleted. Please try and be less inflammatory, and please try and stick to the point when engaging other people in discussion, rather than attempting to turn every conversation into a Blaising argument... --HappyDog 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)




 * Peter Blaise responds:
 * Thank you!
 * I will try to learn from and emulate your example of the dialogical posting styles you ask me for.
 * I note your reference to a online dictionary as if such a reference illustrates an understanding (or mastery?) of the languages in it. I claim no mastery of any language, especially "English", let alone MySQL, PHP and so no - languages spoken by the MediaWiki software.
 * I, however, refer and link to explanations (or lack of explanations in red) as a way to expand on my offering (or hope to), as an effort to reduce ambiguity, and as a way to enhance the likelihood of the next person who reads it actually getting it!
 * For example of such a struggle, I have a business associate friend who sends me public relations materials in German for translation into English. Although I assist in making the sentences meaningful, I cannot guess what they were trying to say - mostly colloquialisms.  I also assume an East Coast speaker of "American" would write differently than a West Coaster, or Southerner.  I might even suggest getting different translations for New Yorkers versus Bostonians!  I'd never dream of writing "English" and hope Australians, Canadians, or the many "English"-speaking people's of India to understand me without iterative follow-up to confirm meanings and reduce ambiguities - eh?  Same for supposedly sharing a common "English" with people from England, Ireland, and so on.  In the hundreds of international Internet discussion groups I participate in, co-moderate, and many of which I started, I run into this all the time.  All we can do it try, try, try again.  Most of us find the confusion amusing, especially between supposedly native English speakers who thought we spoke the same language!  See hoagie, hero, sub, bomber ... or ... frappe, shake, malted, cabinet ... endless!  See Google.com search for define:american english for more!
 * I imagine we have the same disparity in our personal meanings of our terms - again, a reason for me to show links to how I mean any words I use, since so many words are in and of themselves ambiguous (there are more than 75 meanings of the simple word "run", for instance). That's also a reason I look up the words you use - because I do not understand why you think they are a match, they seem to conflict with my own experience.  Just because we dialogue, just because we occasionally disagree, does not mean there is something wrong, or that either one of us is doing anything wrong inside the  discussions themselves.  It it the actions outside the discussions that I object to - the deletion of other people's contributions, especially on the discussion/talk pages, where I was hoping for a less strident standard of perfection that would allow a good back-and-forth dialogue to take place.
 * Please leave discussion page contributions in place, even if you're not sure you understand their reason for being there. Perhaps other's have reasons of their own, and I'm suggesting that their reasons should not have to pass muster (colloquialism) with you just to get air time (colloquialism).  And if I write a lot in a post, and you don't like to read a lot in a post, I can't stop you - and wouldn't want to.  Please don't waste a moment trying to stop me.
 * Thank you. -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 19:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like this is all largely a case of misinterpretation at some level. But I can't say I agree with deleting someone else's comments on a talk page if it's not objectively vandalism. Besides, relevance to the discussion at hand is never criteria for deletion, as many talk pages contain multiple discussions. I'd best not get off topic though, else I be deleted! :^) -- Randall00 01:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

--

Please restore lost community data - MediaWiki history is being erased by over zealous admins
''It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill luck, people understood each other, they would never agree''. -- Charles Baudelaire


 * Peter Blaise responds: Please replace as much of your User:Randall00 page as you can remember - it seems that even the history is gone! I wonder if HappyDog will also delete HappyDog's own comments above that ridicule my name: "... turn every conversation into a Blaising argument ..." see No_personal_attacks ... but again, we're not Wikipedia.org, so ridicule is apparently appropriate, especially coming from admins, but friendly sharing amoung contributors (read:convicts/prisoners) is not.  Oh, well, perhaps we can go underground until the HappyDog-storm blows over.
 * -- Peter Blaise peterblaise 08:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)