| rdfs:comment
| - Maybe we should reorder the table so that active administrators are listed first in alphabetical order, followed by inactive administrators in alphabetical order. That will save users from having to carefully check who is active. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Looks wierd. Change it back, please. - Zero - Talk 08:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Why does it look weird? The 888th Avatar (Talk) 08:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Dunno. It just looks wierd. I can't explain it. Sorry. - Zero - Talk 08:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| abstract
| - Maybe we should reorder the table so that active administrators are listed first in alphabetical order, followed by inactive administrators in alphabetical order. That will save users from having to carefully check who is active. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Such as stiking the name out? That is one route, although with the page the way it is, there is the appearance of many administrators, when in fact there are only six. --Energybender 01:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Striking the name out sort of implies that they're not an administrator anymore, when the actually are. My idea is that the inactive ones are listed after the active ones, so that the active ones are at the top of the page. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 01:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Looks wierd. Change it back, please. - Zero - Talk 08:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Why does it look weird? The 888th Avatar (Talk) 08:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Dunno. It just looks wierd. I can't explain it. Sorry. - Zero - Talk 08:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC) We'll see what the others think. I couldn't care less, but I think the current method makes it easier to see who's active. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 08:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, I'm back. About this, I have to say I like the old organization more. Is our logo really necessary to have there anyway? And I think having the information about admins below the table is better, but that's just me. --Energybender 14:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC) No way. I'm not gonna write an autobiography here and noone else is gonna comment on me either. Thank you very much. Besides that, I liked the old organization as well. It just seemed more prudent for some reason. - Zero - Talk 16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) If you really dislike it, I'll remove it. I think it's better if we explain to users what admins can do, but if you think the old way is better, I'd be happy to get rid of it. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 03:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Although I have no problems with the introductory paragraphs but the table must be switched back to it's previous version. - Zero - Talk 04:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I've done that, but put emphasis (bold, italics) to differentiate active admins from inactive admins. The info has also been put below the table. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 04:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I'm a little skeptical about there being a "semi-active" state. You're either active or you're not. Puragus has contributed to the wiki within this year, which makes him not inactive, and has contributed within a month, which makes him not semi-active. This should be established as part of the policy, don't you think? --Energybender 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC) It doesn't really matter. If he chooses to say that, we'll just let him. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I appreciate that. What it basically means is that I'll have some "off" periods, where I probably won't be able to come here for an extended time. These times could range from a few days to a few weeks. I just don't feel right calling myself "Active" under that situation, since it would imply I'm here more often then I am. People might get the wrong impression and try to depend on me when I can't always be here. Hence the new designation. I hope you understand. Puragus Talk 03:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)