User talk:Samme

• If you want to add a new topic, click here.
• If you want to add a post, click on [edit] by the header of the topic.
• Sign your post with 4 tilde ~~~~
• Preview before you submit!

If you're the wiki admin, block the spammers

The spammers are running wild on this wiki. Ban them from doing it. Trout 15:14, 14 September 2007 (MST)

I'm working on it. Please do sign when you leave a message. You know how, don't you? Samme 15:52, 14 September 2007 (MST)

Yes, of course I know how to sign comments. If you need help with admin, I volunteer. Trout 11:32, 15 September 2007 (MST)

Good, then as soon as I get admin rights from Paul I'll also add you as admin. Samme 13:59, 15 September 2007 (MST)

Okay, it looks like you've got it now. Trout 17:23, 24 September 2007 (MST)

How about that admin access for me? Trout 12:44, 25 September 2007 (MST)

Please block all the spammers. I've set a category on them Categories: Spammer Trout 17:30, 25 September 2007 (MST)

What's the hold up? We need some spammers banned. People are getting frustrated. Look at the decline in participation. Tired of dealing with spammers. Trout 09:26, 18 September 2007 (MST)

I know Trout, but I haven't got any response from Paul yet regarding admin-rights, as soon as we get them then we can start cleaning up. Samme 09:39, 18 September 2007 (MST)

Yeah! Thanks for blocking the spammers! Trout 05:37, 24 September 2007 (MST)

This was just the first step, I'm thinking of implementing some other measures too. --Samme 23:18, 24 September 2007 (MST)

Needs to be fixed

	This article needs to be fixed and/or categorized.
	Please contribute by fixing this article or other that needs to be fixed.

Every page needs to be fixed. This is not helpful unless you say how it is to be fixed. Trout 09:56, 25 September 2007 (MST)

If categorization is one issue and weak content is another, maybe we could have two or more different ones. Trout 10:55, 25 September 2007 (MST)

Good point, what I mean the most with those are that they need to be categorized and wikified and often make them more readable. Maybe we should start by setting up some guidelines how articles should look etc? What do you think? Maybe we could somehow gather the ones that edit the wiki most and agree on some rules/guidelines, maybe via irc? --Samme 13:44, 25 September 2007 (MST)

IRC is fine. server/room/time ? Trout 17:31, 25 September 2007 (MST)

I am not sure why the need to make so many changes. Pluto did most of the work for us. Take a look at there site to see how the pages were originally laid out and connected. http://plutohome.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

There are many pages that are excellent that are not being linked to currently and I think that most of the information needed is already here it just needs to be found. Getting Started is packed full of good useful information that just really needs to be better organized. Features and just looking at http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Special:Uncategorizedpages reveals numerous pages that contain content that needs to be made available. IMHO --Rwilson131 21:20, 25 September 2007 (MST)

Rwilson, do you have any ideas on categories? I've made a little proposal, but it's far from complete and may change alot, take alot, make additions, make changes. Categories, proposal --Samme 23:49, 25 September 2007 (MST)

Samme, I think the Proposed Categories are excellent. My commit was more about not reinventing the wheel. Pluto has put together a pretty thorough set of documentation and most of needs to be documented is already documented. The biggest problem I can foresee is re-organization and clean up/updating the content on these pages. Another problem I see is we need someone who can confirm that the programming information is still indeed correct. Take for instance the very difficult task of building from source. There is no good page for this. I am not a coder. I am someone who has been using this software for almost 18 months when it was pluto. There have been alot of changes since the migration from pluto, so we need to make sure that we are able to get the correct information out on the wiki.--Rwilson131 17:10, 26 September 2007 (MST)

Request for comment

I'm having a discussion with Zaerc about how categories should be organized. Please could you take a look at his talk page at User talk:Zaerc and comment? Lozzo 07:00, 7 October 2007 (MST)

The idea that Zaerc is pressing on with will result in a hardware category with every piece of hardware listed in the hardware root category - creating a mess with dozens of unidentifiable pieces of hardware lumped together. How is it helpful to have RCA HC60RX and Caddx NX-8E in the same category? It isn't even obvious WHAT they are!! In fact, one is an alarm panel and the other is a piece of automation equipment. But you certainly wouldn't know this from looking at the root hardware category!!

This is complete madness and the antithesis of what the designers of MediaWiki intended the category function to be used for. I have pointed this out on several occasions only to receive a response such as (to paraphrase) "well this isn't wikipedia - we do things differently here". Why on earth can't they create a list?! Lozzo 18:23, 8 October 2007 (MST)

New Users

Can you honestly expect someone who has NO experience in Home Automation, or Media Center PCs to actually be able to look at the system without being confused by a mixture of both introductory and architectural technical texts? --Tschak909 17:45, 12 October 2007 (MST)

moving all development-related information

danielk and I are working on setting up a public SVN along with a Trac environment. What do you think about moving all the development related sites into the Trac-wiki? I.e. this wiki would be a "user wiki" while the Trac-wiki becomes a "developer wiki" --chriss 01:11, 13 October 2007 (MST)

I think this sounds like a good idea, this will make users less confused when coming to this wiki. I'm positive, have you talked to someone else about this? --Samme 00:14, 16 October 2007 (MST)

Nope, I just made the suggestion right here. I will open a discussion in the forum as soon as we can make the systems public, i.e. as soon as the sources are in sync with the current releases --chriss 04:36, 16 October 2007 (MST)

Alright, but I think it's better to put the discussion on the community portal here at the wiki, since not all is active on the forum. --Samme 10:31, 16 October 2007 (MST)