Duplicate image

Please don't re-upload an image (seemingly) just to change its description: the first Nov 25 upload didn't change the page summary anyway, so there was no need to re-upload with a new file comment (same as the original Nov 24 one). A page summary can always be adjusted afterwards. We're running low on disk space, and while the intermediate upload can be deleted to clean up the history, MediaWiki still keeps it on the file system so it's a waste of space. --Xymph (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2022 (CST)

Sorry, i was still figuring out how the upload worked and thought i had accidentally uploaded the wrong screenshot. I only saw afterwards that it just hadn't updated the picture yet. I was also surprised to see that there is no way to delete my uploads again in case of a mistake. That seems to be a rather weird technical limitation. I'll be more careful in the future. --Gregor (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2022 (CST)

Older revisions of images can be deleted with the appropriate account rights. Done now. But like any edit can be reverted, so can image revisions be restored by admins, that is why they stay (by default) on the file system. It's part of the wiki design, not an (inadvertent) limitation. --Xymph (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2022 (CST)

Magenta Spire

Please keep an eye on what others are doing: a title screen was already uploaded, although it needed replacement anyway. So your upload can stay, but you may also want to check with Dusty Rhodes about not duplicating work on the Magenta Spire article itself. --Xymph (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2022 (CST)

Will do. Thanks for the heads-up! --Gregor (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2022 (CST)

Okay, last night was a bit hectic. You were upset that your "previous article [] was for some reason completely overwritten by content from duplicate article" and I'd like to apologize for that. The changes were briefly mentioned on Dusty's talk page, but possibly escaped your attention. Both articles originally needed clean up and further work, and Dynamo and I weren't sure how long Dusty's "little break" would take and what would then happen to both articles. So we chose to make a clear path, and your article -- while using the correct URL -- was far less complete than the other with its descriptions of custom content. So your article was archived and Dusty's moved in its place as the better starting point for the remaining work. The moves are also logged in Recent Changes, so it is worthwhile to check that at least for any edits to your contributions and talk posts in discussions you're involved in, to quickly understand what is going on.

Anyway, I don't think it ever happened before in the nearly seven years that I've hanging out here, that two contributors created the same article at two distinct paths simultaneously, and as Quasar notes, we didn't handle that unusual situation very elegantly, or per normal wiki processes. Sorry again.

If you don't need that archived copy anymore, I can delete it. --Xymph (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2022 (CST)

All good. I did indeed not see the explanation on Dusty's Talk page at first, so i was a bit annoyed at seeing my article suddenly "disappear". Once i saw the explanation though, it all made sense, and as you said, it was a unique situation. You can delete my version of the article. I don't need it anymore. Thank you for the clarification. --Gregor (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2022 (CST)

Ok done. --Xymph (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2022 (CST)

The tumbling rocket of map32

Seeing as you couldn't reproduce the Eviternity map32 stuck rocket, I did some testing and found that the bug was caused by me using Boom compatibility, which as it turns out doesn't feature items tumbling off ledges like the more appropriate MBF compatibility does - thanks for taking a look! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inuk (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, no problem. --Gregor (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2023 (CST)

TNT: Threevilution

Please hold off work on this article, pending approval by Quasar. --Xymph (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2023 (CDT)

Gotcha. --Gregor (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2023 (CDT)

Regarding DeHackEd

Hi, since the TSV you created for Sign of Torment was done incorrectly, I figured I'd let you know that I posted a brief explanation on how to succesfully convert DeHackEd values into the mapping table, as you can see here. I used to make these same mistakes, so just passing the knowledge on. :) --Dynamo128 (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2023 (CDT)

Thanks for the heads-up! Yeah, i don't know why i messed those up; complete brain fart. It was probably late and i wasn't thinking straight. ;) That's the only way i can explain using the thing numbers instead of the IDs here because i know very well that the DoomEd numbers need to be listed. I'll make sure to check extra carefully in the future. --Gregor (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2023 (CDT)

Module files

Hey, just figured I'd let you know that when covering module files, Xymph has actually created a specific template to interface with modarchive directly - there is no need to use citations for it. Check the Dark Tartarus page as an example to see how the template is used. --Dynamo128 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2023 (CDT)

I actually already used the modarchive template but inside the citations. I thought it looks more appropriate than to link directly. But you're right. We also link to wikipedia sources directly after all, so makes sense to do the same where a template like this is available. --Gregor (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2023 (CDT)

Episode names removal

Stop doing that. See my partial undos. Please revert the rest. Thank you. --Xymph (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2024 (CDT)

Well, actually I was adding info since the intros lack the episode number and the wording is somewhat weird. But you're right, I should have kept the episode name intact. --Gregor (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2024 (CDT)

That is part of the convention, the number is clearly apparent in the navbox already. The wording could also become too verbose with the map already being numbered - sometimes leaving well enough alone is a better strategy. ;) --Xymph (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2024 (CDT)

MyHouse/Most Mysterious Song on the Internet

So... you rejected my edit, and yet a day later approved of an edit by a totally different person with the exact same information as mine, with the only difference being they put up some Wikipedia links instead? Even if you didn't like that it was YouTube videos, all it took was a casual look around the internet to see that I wasn't just making that up, and the citations/resources could've been altered later. Kind of a crappy thing to do IMO. --Dark Pulse (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2024 (CST)

Not Gregor but checking the talk page it was the same as Wikipedia's reason, lack of reliable sources at the time of your edit. 2A0E:4005:1002:FFFF:185:40:4:100 18:18, 7 November 2024 (CST)

I added a bit more context to my edit comment on the MyHouse Talk page, not sure if you saw that. Basically, at the time of your edit, the info was still unconfirmed despite the fact that many, like the creator of the YouTube video you linked to, were already treating it as fact. Also, IMO an article about MyHouse does not really need to include sources that prove the identity of a song that appears in it when that song already has it's own article on Wikipedia where all the necessary sources are provided anyways. I understand that the quick turnaround made my edits look somewhat suspect, but in this case things simply developed much more quickly than I anticipated. --Gregor (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2024 (CST)