HRWiki talk:Why create an account?
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→Sysop Part of this Page: agree w/ Slipstream) |
Defender1031 (Talk | contribs) (Best spamlance site for spamecom spamineers) |
||
| (includes 6 intermediate revisions) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I think it's saying that if you don't make an account, you'll never a be sysop. {{User:Shwoo/sig}} 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | :I think it's saying that if you don't make an account, you'll never a be sysop. {{User:Shwoo/sig}} 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
::Would it make any sense to expect to gain sysop priveleges as an IP user? I agree, the "Sysop Status" topic isn't a good fit for the page. The TOC otherwise reads as a list of benefits of membership. This makes it seem as if "sysop status" is also a benefit. I think it ought to be removed. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ::Would it make any sense to expect to gain sysop priveleges as an IP user? I agree, the "Sysop Status" topic isn't a good fit for the page. The TOC otherwise reads as a list of benefits of membership. This makes it seem as if "sysop status" is also a benefit. I think it ought to be removed. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::I agree with slippy and qermy, and would add that i'm surprised that loafing didn't give a reason for the revert. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::I'm in agreement here too... we've [[HRWiki:FAQ#How do I become an admin or sysop?|already got a list of becoming-sysop-related stuff]] which is more than adequate... and I don't think the prospect sysophood should offered as an incentive for creating an account... there's already enough legitimate reasons on the page, without it. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::::I agree on all accounts. Although I'm not surprised I didn't give a reason for my revert; I've been rather sloppy lately :-/{{User:Loafing/sig}} 00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::If that's the case, why did you revert in the first place? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 10:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::::::I removed it simply because the reason slippy gave was not true the way he said it [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Why_create_an_account%3F&diff=496730&oldid=477601]. I should have taken a bit more time and realized that the section was indeed somewhat out of place.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
Current revision as of 15:46, 14 November 2018
[edit] Sysop Part of this Page
Ok, I just removed a part of this page outlining that only registered users can get sysop statis, but it was reverted and put back, with no explination why it's a good idea, I deleted it because it was somewhat misleading, making it seem like staff promotion was some kind of a gift given to new members, which is just stupid, if anyone actually read this page, it would seem like they should get it, simply because they are new, so, maybe it's just the negative attitude to removing large amounts of info without consulting the talk page, but why exactly should that part stay, it's already on the FAQ anyway. --~ SlipStream 12:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's saying that if you don't make an account, you'll never a be sysop. —Shwoo 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Would it make any sense to expect to gain sysop priveleges as an IP user? I agree, the "Sysop Status" topic isn't a good fit for the page. The TOC otherwise reads as a list of benefits of membership. This makes it seem as if "sysop status" is also a benefit. I think it ought to be removed. - Qermaq - (T/C)
13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with slippy and qermy, and would add that i'm surprised that loafing didn't give a reason for the revert. — Defender1031*Talk 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement here too... we've already got a list of becoming-sysop-related stuff which is more than adequate... and I don't think the prospect sysophood should offered as an incentive for creating an account... there's already enough legitimate reasons on the page, without it. --phlip TC 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree on all accounts. Although I'm not surprised I didn't give a reason for my revert; I've been rather sloppy lately :-/ Loafing
00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- If that's the case, why did you revert in the first place? — Defender1031*Talk 10:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree on all accounts. Although I'm not surprised I didn't give a reason for my revert; I've been rather sloppy lately :-/ Loafing
- I'm in agreement here too... we've already got a list of becoming-sysop-related stuff which is more than adequate... and I don't think the prospect sysophood should offered as an incentive for creating an account... there's already enough legitimate reasons on the page, without it. --phlip TC 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with slippy and qermy, and would add that i'm surprised that loafing didn't give a reason for the revert. — Defender1031*Talk 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Would it make any sense to expect to gain sysop priveleges as an IP user? I agree, the "Sysop Status" topic isn't a good fit for the page. The TOC otherwise reads as a list of benefits of membership. This makes it seem as if "sysop status" is also a benefit. I think it ought to be removed. - Qermaq - (T/C)
