honestly, I want to tell you that we have almost nothing left to lose, I tell myself that the project can be a great idea but we'll have to be careful.
J'ai deux nouvelles, une mauvaise et une bonne
La mauvaise nouvelle c'est que je ne peux pas forcer les gens à m'accepter ou à m'aimer
La bonne nouvelle c'est que j'en ai rien à foutre
Do you think the project is a good idea?
I wanted to wait at least a bit before i start, maybe even until the next "Site Members" update hits.
But good to know that someone out there got my back.
I couldn't do a better job than you, but if you need help, I'm here. Although it's time, my life is a little complicated, I can always help a little.
J'ai deux nouvelles, une mauvaise et une bonne
La mauvaise nouvelle c'est que je ne peux pas forcer les gens à m'accepter ou à m'aimer
La bonne nouvelle c'est que j'en ai rien à foutre
There once was a so called "Outreach Team" or "QUAESITOR" on this side.
As fare as i could tell that team would go to other wikis and try to draw in members to this side.
As fare as i can tell the admin staff never discontinued this program officially.
What i will try to do is to reach out to members of this wiki, who have not posted anything (anywhere).
With a bit of luck they are not tied to another side already. This means with a bit of attention they could call the Insurgency there first wiki. A Wiki-Home so to speak.
We know that they want to be part of the Insurgency and we can assume that they read at least the rules.
This is ideal. What better candidates for new active members could there be?
There are some downside to this.
I think the benefits outweigh the costs here.
I will start operation "Project In-reach" in the next few days if nothing changes. I can only do so much alone, so i will start very small. I am also not what adminestration would call a good "Used-Car-Salesman".
Me being the face of the Insurgency is not a Job i ever thought would fall on me.
So, nice people who can read this and think they could do a better job than me, now is the time to tell me.
There once was a concept on this side named "Mini-Tales".
Sadly the evidence of them has all but faded.
As i understood it, these were tales that were deemed to short to be proper tales. Once they were posted the author usually did not expand on them for a while, but when he/she did expand on it, the mini-tale would be re-tagged into a tale.
A mini-tale was something else than a work in progress. It stood on its own and was maybe even regarded as finished by its author.
In another thread, i played with the idea of a "Concepts Log", but i think mini-tales would be the better format to achieving the same purpose.
I am sure many authors have a workflow where they know a concept, but do not want to write a full article or tale.
The pieces are there, they are just not put together.
Sadly most authors do not write down these concepts or do not publish them.
On the other side we have authors that write the item first before having thought there concept through.
Both extremes lead to frustration.
I am not advocating to put mini-tales on the main site without a quality check. What i do wish for is that these concepts are written down and sandboxed.
Thoughts?
At this point i would call this item abandoned.
The author has aborted all communication to this side and has moved on to other projects.
Also Self-Upvoted.
Since the chance of future corrections is almost at 0%, i have to Downvote it since it is incomplete in its current state,
considering how easy this problem could be fixed with "transparent Black Bars".
If you had not self up-voted i could have let this thing slide and not vote on it, but as it is this is no longer an option.
I still wish for the item to be fixed and finished and i am still willing to help.
I have read the report and I partly support what Meta may have said, You should rework the article. I would be glad to offer my help, if you want it. After everyone in this world has different ways of writing and therefore a different way to tell there stories. This is the strength of writing. Everyone writes differently, even when dealing with the same subject
But as I said at the beginning, you have to rework the article a little, but don't deprive yourself of your way to write.Follow Meta's advice, while incorporating your way to write and tell a story. Don't stick to much to the advice, it is a help, but it still is your article.
J'ai deux nouvelles, une mauvaise et une bonne
La mauvaise nouvelle c'est que je ne peux pas forcer les gens à m'accepter ou à m'aimer
La bonne nouvelle c'est que j'en ai rien à foutre
Your main problem is still intact. The horror is still censored out.
This leaves your main problem, number 3 and maybe number 2.
I still think this should be sandboxed before moving further. Move your creation back into the sandbox so that the conversation may be had over there.
I would also once again like to discourage the practice of "save and continue". It makes it harder to track progress on a project.
I attempted to update the item’s file according to your recommendations.
Best regards,
Dr. Xythinien
Hello there.
The concept is workable, but i think you need to perform some re-calibration before the pieces is ready for posting.
Currently you run into the "censored the horror out" problem. As this anomaly is mend to be used as a security feature i can see why some information needs to be redacted, but to allow the reader to know what is going on this information should be noted somewhere. If i only know human and something else, i have no clue what i am actually supposed to envision. There is a high chance that whenever an article says, "Elevated Clearance Required" on a collapsible/tab that this segment will contain the information not found within the main article.
Other things:
I hope that we can get this item ready, but as it is, it still needs some fixing before i can up-vote it.
Tick, Tock.
I think the Admins are slipping again.
With the new members list once again standing still for 30 days i restart this clock.
There is currently no emergency, so i will not sent a PM as to not dull that specific blade.
Could just one admin please post something to confirm there continued attention to this wiki?
Considering the precedent i would say we moved closer to the void.
Should it be necessary i will enact the 2th phase of this plan.
This timer before the enactment of stage 2 will be set to 30 days, counting from today.
Note: This timer will not be stopped by a changed "Members List". I wish to know which admin is still active or if more than one is currently active, should the "Members List" be updated. The members list can be considered a faulty measuring tool, as maybe we just did not received applications in the time frame in question. Relying only on this tool for measuring admin activity just shows how underused "recent contributions" and "recent posts" of admin profiles are.
During Stage 2 I will send PMs to urge for a response. Should my PMs stay unanswered for 30 days this will start Phase 3.
During stage 3 I will move forward and ask the Admins of Wikidot to grant me the Admin Status on the Main Site, Sandbox, Image Database and Falchion Valley.
All sitting admins would still keep there admin status until they ether step down themselves or are inactive for 2 years or are voted out by a 4 week long majority vote by the other siting admins.
Should an emergency occur i will speed up the steps described above.
Best Case: The Admins (even one) come(s) back. Hurray, success.
Worst Case: The Insurgency runs without administrative staff for n days (90 or less) before someone takes over.
If there is someone else in line before me i will not try to take his/her place in line.
This is the plan as it stands now.
If someone has a better plan please detail it or any changes able to improve this plan below.
I act in complacency with the section Emergency Powers as described in the Site Protocol.
Should there be further concerns about my qualification as they were last time this topic was brought up, than the win condition of at least one admin showing any sign of activity has already been reached.
The generator thing could be resolved in (at least) two ways.
I don't believe the possibility of "Limitless, Transportable, Free Energy" can just be ignored.
Thank you for explaining the thing about the generator, is it okay If I keep it as a field tool? I designed this piece for the mace to be used in demolitions and target elimination, I hope it's alright to keep it that way.
And as for the other problem's I'll try my hardest to shorten the 'Hazard' section further, and I'll also work on making the image look older.
It's also a great point that The Foundation isn't THAT bad at their job, I'll make sure to revise the history section.
Accessibility is in the eye of the beholder, so if you think it can work like that, that is your call to make.
As for the generator, may i direct your attention to the standard combustion engine. This picture in particular (only used on the German version of the Wikipedia entry). Since your anomaly dose not produce an even kickback (like a regular explosion) one would have to add the same image mirrored horizontally on top of this image and allowing the anomaly to swing up and down within this engine (restrained by a frame if necessary). Add the item where OT points to now. No need to add fuel. Just start the engine by swinging one wheel and the machine dose the rest.
When people think explosions most think destruction. I think car engine.
I have not read the edits yet so if this explanation misses something that might be why.
Good work on the report section. I still think that my points on formatting for your "Hazard" entry still applies.
If you intent to stick to the "photo taken in 1972" angle you might still need to increase the image quality and you would have to add some filter. The old analog cameras worked rather well. But if anything that would be a finishing touch and i think no one will put your article under the same intense scrutiny as me.
Just to be safe i would download the picture and host it on a CI service. (We had some problems with disappearing images hosted on other websites, just credit the source if you use that approach)
To something different: Do you plan to elaborate on the history of the item? The Foundation usually dose not get sloppy.
Alright, I've changed the weight of the object, and the trigger force needed. Fixed the hazards section, and added a "Reported Anomaly" row. I've also altered the report section to include the appropriate information.
I would like to mention a few things, however. Firstly I think that keeping the image at this quality will add to the idea that it was taken upon recovery by an agent with a camera. And it's also my belief that altering the specs of the item to be more simply understood by potential readers may take away from the quality of the piece as a whole, and I understand that it's a matter of accessibility, and understandability, but most readers can enjoy and properly understand for the most part what is written without fully understanding the physical science behind it. If any individual is interested in more fully understanding the specs, they can investigate it on their own terms.
I'm also somewhat confused about what you mean when you say this item would be better as a generator tool, I understand that it is, in its mechanics, a perpetual motion device, however, I fail to see how this could be used to provide much of substance in a controlled setting to provide power. It is better suited for destruction and demolition.
Besides these things please advise me on any other problems the piece has.
http://theinsurgency.wikidot.com/
Reading there rules i thought, yes, a classic short-lived off-shot, but than i went through some of the members of the side and non of them are affiliated with this side.
Considering how different the tone is i would not suggest to contact them.
Just read parts of there how-to and you know what i mean.
It is a different direction one could follow from the same base idea, so i thought i should share this, just for completion.
Side-note:
Please use the "Preview" function and not the "Save & Continue" function.
It floods this side, which I need to keep an eye on things. Using the "Preview" option would also make comparing versions of your draft a lot easier for me.
I think you overshot the compression of the image.
Stretching a 233 to a 300 visibly reduced the image quality.
As i said above, a compression to 900 or even 600 would have been sufficient.
Hazards has gotten quite bit. These boxes usually use key points separated by comas instead of full sentences.
The Report section should open with a sentence similar to this one:
"The item is a …" followed by a short description and the mentioning of its anomalous effect.
I think i know what you try to do with the item, but as it stands, this thing would make for a better generator than a field tool. Maybe it needs a limiter to stop it from becoming just a very efficient generator.
If more comes out than goes in you might be dealing with a perpetual motion reactor and i don't think that it was planed as such.
Also we might need someone with not as much knowledge of forces to check the way you have written down your conversion rates. I can read them just fine, but someone less familiar with the subject might not understand it.
Specifically these three parts:
- increasing by approximately 432301.3 Pascals per .54 kilograms of applied force
- increasing by approximately 2.06 meters per .54 kilograms of applied force
- item will not create recoil equivalent to the amount of force projected, with the user experiencing less than 1% of the force that there would be in a non-anomalous scenario
Also according to this side dropping the mace will never generate a blast. So if you want to keep "accidental activation" on the table as a possible side effect you might need to lower the level were the effect triggers or increase the wight of the mace.
EDIT: I could be wrong on this one. You might need to reconsider the way it is described when the effect triggers. Maybe newton is not the proper unit there. "Velocity" might be better suited for this task.
Okay, I've updated the entry. I hope I've properly addressed the problems you pointed out to me. If there are any other issues you have please let me know.
Welcome to the Insurgency.
Your item works for the most part.
You do have some problems. The first one a reader will notice is the load time of the image.
I looked at the data of said image and i don't believe a 1900 source image compressed down to a 300 site image is appropriate.
High quality images do improve articles, but if they first have to load in slowly they might take some enjoyment out of it. I would suggest a compression down to 900 for the original image,
Next, the format screw of the top boxes.
Question-marks do not fit the format, as do containment procedures.
The containment should be part of the report portion.
The potential/current hazards segment should be used to give the reader a scope of things that might go wrong.
The warning currently occupying that box dose not provide that. Nuclear levels of destruction however is very much a potential hazard that should be mentioned there.
How dose one apply 6.6 kg of force? I think you mean ether an acceleration (m/s²) or a force in Newton ((kg*m)/s²).
I would also advise against the use of PSI. Please referee to Pascal.
The Insurgency uses the metric system so please don't use "Pounds per square inch".
You should also untangle your "Usage". Some of the things in there definitely belong in the "Report" portion.
Please referee to the questions provided in the standard format template.
A funny side effect of your choice not to write a "Report" section is that, without the picture, there is no description of the item. Considering that this is definitely not a "normal" hammer design i would like to see some elaboration on that fact (Maybe this was just how hammers looked during a particular time, but i (or another reader) don't know that).
I hope that this helps you.
Also welcome to the Sandbox.
Welcome to the laboratory of creation.
