Nope. The only ability I have is rollback, which allows me to undo edits done to a page all at once as long as they were by the same user - it's quite useful against trolls who edit a page multiple times in a very quick interval, because it can then be reverted with a single click.
As for deleting comments, anyone can delete comments on a Forum or on someone's Message Wall, so that's nothing special (at least, that's my assumption)
Admin-exclusive powers include: deleting pages, blocking users, closing forum threads, as well as being able to edit the MediaWiki pages.
As far as wanting to become an admin, I wouldn't mind being one, but I think it's better for me not to be one; there's already two active admins, as far as I know (you and Jim) and that's a good amount for the wiki.
Technically there's supposed to be me, Jim, Captain Magnum, and Putowtin, but Cap's disappeared and we can only guess as to Putowtin's mysterious nature.
Shrev, I realize Game Informer has a lot of details about Second Son, but that means nothing. IGN or GameStop could be having the big details, and they could slap up a Holiday 2013 release date too- but that doesn't make it official. As I have stated, which you ignored clearly, it's not official until Sucker Punch or Sony SAY it's official.
An example: Amazon.com several times has placed release dates on their game pages but that doesn't mean that it's official, hell when Uncharted 3 wasn't even announced yet, they made an assumption title which is not Drake's Deception. To say, AGAIN, it's not official unless someone OFFICIAL, says it is.
My reasoning was that since Game Informer has been directly interviewing Sucker Punch for the past week or so, and they're the ones bringing out all the big info directly from Sucker Punch, so I figured they got the "official" release window also.
Anyways, I see where you're coming from, and I completely understand; we'll keep it to "TBA" until Sucker Punch/Sony announces it. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
Sorry but I'm going to have to repeat my previous statement. Wait what? I see a bunch of confusing Wikia Code. Is it really that complicated to change the background of your comments?
/*********************************************/
/*** Article Comments - Staff Highlighting ***/
/*********************************************/
.comments li[data-user="Shrev64"] > blockquote {
background: red !important;
border-color: grey grey grey grey !important;
color: black !important;
text-decoration: none;
}
.comments li[data-user="Shrev64"] > blockquote:after {
background: transparent !important;
border-color: transparent red red transparent !important;
color: red !important;
Taking a look at what my color scheme is as an example, we first see the data-user portion. Whatever is in the quotes is the username.
Next, we can care about the background. My background is red, with a border color of gray, and a font color of black.
Looking at the next part (blockquote:after), I believe that's the code that makes sure my timestamp and username are still visible.
In all due honesty, the code powering my background is simple compared to the other Staff. My best recommendation to you is to create your own test wiki, and then copy-paste someone's code, like War Clown's, into your own MediaWiki, and then change colors, background images, etc, from there.