User talk:Leucosticte

WikiIndex - wikis, wiki people, wiki software, and wiki ideas
Jump to: navigation, search

Spam filter help[edit]

You're a wizzo on MW - can you help me with a spam filter problem please? I'm getting The following text is what triggered our spam filter: https://secure when trying to edit an article (though I thought that sysops should be able to automatically by-pass spam filters). I've tried editing our MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, but without success. Any clues? TIA Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 12:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My regex-fu isn't very good, unfortunately. Leucosticte (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
@Sean: Could you give the url you are adding? (without the "https://", so it won't trigger the url blacklist) --YiFei | talk 03:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
YiFei, sorry for the late reply, the (non-secure) url is - it is for the Travellerspoint wiki.
Yikes - even the non-https url is blocked by the spam filter — The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://secure – try using 'nowikii', hope I can save this edit! Thanks in advance :)))) Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 22:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC) is now whitelisted. The problem belongs to "cure" part, but I cannot find the cause easily in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or meta-wiki:Spam_blacklist --YiFei | talk 14:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Article or cat?[edit]

here: WikiIndex talk:Community portal#Template:Inactive. You support the keeping of articles, but the discussion is about the keeping of category tags in articles or keeping articles about currently dead Wikis in categories. Please be precise in what You advocate.Manorainjan (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


Do You have an opinion on that? Please place Your vote on this. Manorainjan (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Would You please explain precisely why You can not support Option 1 or 2?Manorainjan (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm just wondering about the details of implementation. Leucosticte (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Did You miss his demonstration on what the Bot is about to do? 10 test edits? Manorainjan (talk)
Why is it not using link= Leucosticte (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Please for clarity's sake give a full example of what You mean. Manorainjan (talk)
What if we did it like this instead? Leucosticte (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why you want to have the logo (which is uploaded here, and contains any necessary copyright or author info) link to the off-site wiki; when you have a clearly visible 'external link' right next to the logo? Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you think the typical user would like or expect to happen when they click on a logo? You might be right, though; I notice that on Wikipedia, even on the main page, when you click an image it takes you to the image page, not the article that the image is about. On the other hand, if you click the logos at it takes you to the wiki, rather than the image page for the logo. Leucosticte (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This is another discussion! Like here: WikiIndex talk:Community portal#Endless discussions .2F.2F useful work

First the deviations from the common path need to be corrected. Then, after cleaning this and possibly other alterations, new features like the one You suggest, can be implemented by one run of another bot. If we would run a bot now to change the way the click on the logo would lead to, the current deviations might be exempted, creating more diversity in the way things are handled. Sooner or later bot constructions would have to handle a quite confusing amount of exemptions for the tiniest tasks.

Right now it is about how the page links to the logo file, not where the click on the logo leads to. If You call for 'endless' discussion, the linking question will be delayed and Your suggestion would rather not be dealt with at all, because after the finalising of the linking question I would not push Your idea to decision and You have to promote Your advanced cause yourself after everybody got enough of 'endless' discussions already. You may be thinking to make Your life easier by jumping on my train, but I will say You got no ticket and You will end in a place where You did not want to and would have to go back first. ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to do two edits. The bot can envision what the page will look like after making the first edit (rather than actually making that first edit) and then figure out what the second edit would be, and then do it all in one edit. Leucosticte (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Ignore what I told and see what happens ...Manorainjan (talk)


Why don't You use that template yourself? Manorainjan (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests[edit]

Hi Nathan, I was just emptying out Category:Pages for deletion and I noticed some of your own images which you nominated for deletion. However, the first one I clicked on is still being used on an existing article! If I do delete this (or any other used image) the article it was being used on will then go into a maintenance category for missing images. Perhaps you can review your reqested deletions, and amend any articles currently using them. Thanks :)) Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 21:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, done. Thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we can read: "Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not in actual fact hold. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another.[1][2] In Moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles.[3]" In how far is Your behaviour different from that? Please elaborate that on the example that You speak of founding Inclupedia and in deed try Your best to erase all traces of Your former fiancée from all over the internet. Manorainjan (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Even you agreed to delete one of those pages. So why not the others? Leucosticte (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is imagined. I did not agree. My conclusion there was and is: "Therefore my call is for hiding this entry until verified contact was made to her and her own intentions about this entry are known". Prior I said "Therefore I could see it as in the interest of the original author (Augustine) that those results of the breaches would be removed." I'm not surprised that You count that as agreement to delete. I wonder what she told You when You 'asked' her if the unpermitted publishing of her striptease would be ok? Maybe she answered like: "I think it is not so bad." But surely You can not remember the wording now any more, like all the unpleasant stuff. I used conditional. Conditional is not a yes. Conditional is clearly and unmistakeably a 'no', until the condition is met. The condition is not yet met. And even if the condition is met, it is not automatically a 'yes' until the condition is clearly defined as the only condition. I thought You are kind of fit in programming. But that has shown as a wrong supposition. Now, what I was insinuating under the not yet met condition, was not the deletion of the page, it was my sympathetic feelings for 'them' or their supposed (not actual) intention: "see it as in the interest of the original author (Augustine)". To call this my agreement is far from being true. Maybe You got too much experience with persuasion that You can see clearly any more? Manorainjan (talk)

WikiIndex mails potentially spoofed[edit]

You told, that "For some reason, WikiIndex emails are regarded as potentially spoofed.". How did You get to know that? Which entity does regard this mails as potentially spoofed? What I got to know is, that the configuration is kind of queer, because Marks gmail address is used to 'speak' on behalf of and that the ICANNWikis server is used to transport it. Sure that looks like spoofing. Manorainjan (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


You seam to have rich experiences with banning denial of standard offer requests Was there a reason given in You case? Had there been warning? Manorainjan

It's a very convoluted situation, and at this point the proceedings have become pretty opaque. It is, after all, an ArbCom case, and not one of the formal, publicly-adjudicated litigations either, but the kind that they discuss on their private email list.
I see that there are allegedly "extremely serious" reasons for your indef block. I just have one question. Leucosticte (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You dumped a more or less complete policy on the formerly nearly empty page WikiIndex:Blocking and banning policy. the discussion was, as usual ongoing and 'endless'. Nothing was decided. When Your text sticks on that policy page it looks like valid policy to most, which it is not. I think You should dump that on the associated talk page instead. I think is it quite inappropriate that any user dumps text which has not been decided about via discussion and decision finding on any policy page. Don't You recognize that policy pages are different from all other kind of pages in the way they get written and edited? Talk pages are also special in so far that one should not edit others talk on such pages (except for supportive formatting). Do You see the principal difference between talk pages, articles and policy pages? Manorainjan (talk) 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you fix it up as you see fit my making bold edits? By which I mean, don't just get rid of the content unless you have a substantive rather than procedural objection to it. Leucosticte (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


I wish You a recreating WikiBreak :-)

The solution on the issues You observed are laying in the ongoing exercising of NVC. Manorainjan (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Are You suffering from withdrawal symptoms? ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, at this point I'm kinda depressed in general. I think I'm going to start trying some different antidepressants until either my symptoms are relieved or one of them pushes me over the edge into actively suicidal behavior. I have my method ready in case that happens.
I once warned a friend of mine about how Zoloft had "destabilized me and impelled me to take unprecedented steps toward suicide" and he replied, "There are many more still to try, and I feel well prepared for their vagaries by my experience with recreational substances. On balance, and so far, it seems to be worth at least trying some, one by one." He ended up carrying out an apparently psychiatric drug-induced suicide. It never occurred to me till now, that maybe he didn't mind the possibility that the drugs might cause him to kill himself. Leucosticte (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


When I get a headache I never take a pill. I hate headaches, it seriously decreases my performance in quantity and quality. But there is one thing I hate more than headache and that is to remove symptoms. Symptoms are most valuable. I need to have the symptom in order to detect the cause of the problem. The vanishing of the symptom will tell me, that the cause is removed. If I would remove the symptom by using a pill, I would loose the ability to find and remove the cause. I would be lost. The cause would need to create an even stronger symptom in order to be detected and it will. I would need stronger pills in order to suppress the symptoms. A chase to death while increasingly loosing control over the situation.

There is no such thing as an antidepressant. There are chemicals that prevent different kinds of feelings, they disable the ability to feel. There are narcotic substances on different levels, most common alcohol for disabling mental functions on a wide array and to kill unrecoverable brain substance. Pain killers against physical pain and so called antidepressants to suppress subtler feeling to disable higher functions of the mind. They also suppress the ability to feel joy. If You ever found the determination to fight for a higher cause, You would loose that determination after taking antidepressants. That's why so called antidepressants are actually the modern form of depression of the people. More than 30% of adult people in the developed countries are taking prescribed antidepressants. This is not to help people, it is to complement the depressing effect of alcoholism. Alcoholics have never been a danger for the ruling class neither will people taking antidepressants be or pot-smoker.

If You ever want to became a healthy and happy person, You must be ready to bear any pain which You have at the moment and not suppress it. This pain shall be Your incentive to fight for progress of any kind. As much as You can feel pain, You can feel pleasure. Manorainjan (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


New pages[edit]

Manorainjan (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Random shit wiki[edit]

Is there a wiki out there, besides on Wikia, where people can post whatever random shit they want in their userspace and not have it be deleted? Leucosticte (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever You like to create, random or not, shit or not, and want to be sure it does not get deleted, You got to do that under Your own controll, on Your very own wiki. So make Yourself a bliki in a WikiFarm. WardsWiki is IP-Editing only. Whatever you do it is not safe there, it might vanish every moment. But on the other hand You will never get banned there, whatever shit You do or post. And mostly folks respect whatever "shit" You post on Your UserPage there. I introduced the TalkPage concept there which decouples HomePage and Talk. So, HomePage gets left alone even more.

Manorainjan (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, I saw You got Your "random shit wiki" online again ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Write something in the "Summary" of Your edits![edit]

Please use the summary field when editing! Manorainjan (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm kinda lazy about that. People are going to look at the diff anyway. Leucosticte (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

People have to if You do not supply a summary. Manorainjan (talk)

Lazy as usual?Manorainjan (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
About what? Leucosticte (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

About the topic in the title: Writing something in the Summary of Your edits. Manorainjan (talk)[edit]

You should be knowing better ... Manorainjan (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gotta stand up for freedom of speech. Leucosticte (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not my point. You where making a quite incomplete entry.
  • Number of Pages not set
  • Still has no category for Year of creation
  • Founder not mentioned

I mean, it is Your very own Wiki. You should be able to supply all kind of information about it. Nobody else would know better or more. And you are member of WikiIndex since long. Is the topic really pornography? Now You are saying it is about free speech.... Do You really know what You want? Seems You are sill lacking the mind to make a clear distinction between the abstract and the concrete level. Have You learned anything from the different failures of Your past? Or are You bound to repeat them all? You have repeatedly shown Your inability to work in teams. Why do You think anybody would work with You successfully in the creation and progress of this highly specialised wiki? Is it not an certainty that this project will fail as all the others? Divide and conquer! But how are You to divide anything else than separating Yourself from the crowd? Whom could You possibly conquer, remaining a single mind with hardly any resources? Have You the least chance to withstand the to be expected onslaught by the spammers on this delicious target? Do You miss Your time in jail?Manorainjan (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this your way of volunteering to stand with me in solidarity as part of the team to help ensure the project's success? Leucosticte (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not, because I'm convinced of the futility of that idea. Why should I? Have I been even asked about what should or could be done? I rather "volunteer" as incentive for Your rethinking. Or should I say for Your starting to eventually think for the first time? Manorainjan (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I make the decisions about what should and can be done, thank you very much. However, you can be one of my lieutenants if you act subservient and sycophantic enough. Leucosticte (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What have You seen about me that gave You the imagination that such would be a possibility within my lifetime?

I'm going to need a more humble supplication from you if you're going to stand a chance of acceptance to the inner circle. Leucosticte (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If in what You wrote is the least of logic, what did I write that would give reason to fantasize that I got anything near to an inclination to take part in this still-born project? Manorainjan (talk)

It's such an awesome project, who wouldn't want to be part of it? Leucosticte (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WIKI 2[edit]

How do You get the idea, that his "Wiki" is based on MediaWiki-Engine? Manorainjan (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

View the source; it has stuff like:
var startUp = function () {
    mw.config = new mw.Map(true);
        "wgFormattedNamespaces":{"1":"Talk","0":"","3":"User talk","2":"User","5":"Wikipedia talk","4":"Wikipedia","7":"File talk","6":"File","9":"MediaWiki talk","8":"MediaWiki","447":"Education Program talk","446":"Education Program","108":"Book","109":"Book talk","100":"Portal","101":"Portal talk","11":"Template talk","10":"Template","13":"Help talk","12":"Help","15":"Category talk","14":"Category","-1":"Special","-2":"Media","118":"Draft","119":"Draft talk","710":"TimedText","711":"TimedText talk","828":"Module","829":"Module talk"},
        "wgScriptPath": "/w",
        "wgScriptExtension": ".php",     
        "AjaxRequestTimeout": 30,
        "wgArticlePath": "/wiki/$1",
        "wgEnableAPI": true,
        "moreTxt": "Continue"
    mw.messages.set('searchsuggest-search', 'Search');
    mw.messages.set('searchsuggest-containing', 'Containing: ');
    mw.messages.set('searchsuggest-search-page', 'Special:Search');

Leucosticte (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is quite late in the page. What about Tags like <meta name="generator" content="MediaWiki 1.25wmf6". This You can see on the imported page. But what seems to be like MW-code is always part of the WP-page inline, not of the w2 host.

Don't be fooled! "web-proxy WIKI2.ORG" It's not a wiki it's a proxy.Manorainjan (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

What does that mean? Leucosticte (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's function is to transport and transform, not to edit.Manorainjan (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for ServerMove concerns[edit]

Hi Leucosticte. Since you are one of the most active contributors here I wanted to be sure to draw your attention to the upcoming ServerMove and solicit your help in making the transition a positive rather than negative experience. Please take a moment to visit ServerMove and curate the list of concerns. Thanks! -- BrandonCsSanders (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


What about AssumeGoodFaith? Manorainjan (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiIndex:Inclusion policy[edit]

So Your page got deleted. Do You know why?

Because You can not single-handedly create policy anywhere else than on Your own wiki. You got to open discussion first and try for consensus. But to whom do I talk? To the one who failed my simple intelligence test ;-)

BTW: You where putting delete request on that AV-software page. Got deleted. You did not try to talk to the author. So, bad KARMA for You ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiIndex needs an inclusion policy. So, I don't know why people didn't boldly edit, or use the talk page to discuss proposed changes. A policy that doesn't yet have support can be tagged as a proposed policy. Leucosticte (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edits repeatedly and consistently reveal Your lack of understanding that a text is not a text is not a text. Some text is a discussion other text is a document and other is a comment. You straight fail to understand and deal with those differences by falsification of discussion parts and treating document like discussion. You mix it up.

Now the policy needs to be proposed on the talk side of the Wikiindex:page. I nthe front side of this page comes only the result of consensus. And, if You did not know that: A single bird can not create consensus. It needs a flock of birds to do that.

What about BeBold? Leucosticte (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Your question proves that You did not even start to understand the difference. You still mix it up helplessly. Manorainjan (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Enlighten me. How else are we going to end up with an inclusion policy, without people's being bold? You know how the community discussions end up going on endlessly, or else dying out without any decision being made. Leucosticte (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I conclude from Your question that You might have understood more than You admit but are impatient to get results.

You got to propose a policy on the discussion page and see it through. As long as it takes.... That's what I did with the email-verification problem and prior with the direct linking to logo files. Being patient, hanging on, persisting, not the easiest exercice for bipolars, I know. ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Now the page is restored. You can correct it by declaring it proposed policy and entry point of a discussion. On the TalkSide! Manorainjan (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Consider this a friendly warning[edit]

Look, I've noticed you edit warring with Abd, and frankly, I agree with his contention you cannot unilaterally decide new policy without consensus, and attempting to force your view via an edit war is counterproductive.

While I cannot speak for the other administrators, for myself I'm all for promoting harmony on any wiki I administrate, and if you continue to disrupt that harmony, you may have to be blocked for a time, the length depending on the level of disruption you continue to display. Arcane (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it edit warring; more like being part of the BRD cycle. Definitely I didn't do anything that would be akin to a 3RR violation. I encourage you not to overreact; there's not really a lot of disharmony going on right now on the wiki, just healthy debate. Leucosticte (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said it was 3RR. It was not, however, BRD. He has not over-reacted. As to "healthy debate," Nathan, you call all debate "healthy." But the purpose of the wiki is *not* debate. The purpose does require, at times, discussion, which can become debate, i.e., two sides, each arguing strenuously that they are right.
BRD: Bold action, Reverted, so Discuss. On the proposed policy, you took bold action, too bold. You labelled a proposed policy a "policy." That was coming out of your consistent WP:POINT violations. I reverted, started discussion, and you reverted back. On our equivalent to a noticeboard, there was a disruptive request that you be banned, from an IP editor. You responded, because you love fracas. I removed that, because if you are going to be banned, it should not be at the prompting of an IP troll or lunatic. I don't think it's necessary to ban you, and Arcane has not suggested it. So, following some basic principles, I removed the discussion. You reverted. That could be interpreted as BRD. However, you did not discuss. (I.e., my removal was Bold, you Reverted). --Abd (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
An edit summary can be a form of discussion, if it introduces a new argument to the debate. I think it can be appropriate to make a second revert if it's anticipated that the argument being introduced in the edit summary will be accepted. The reason for a 3RR rather than a 2RR is that people can, in good faith, revert each other a couple times, using edit summaries for discussion, before it becomes evident that they are not doing a good job estimating their ability to settle the issue so easily, and that they need to go to the talk page with their debate. Leucosticte (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Abd has a point here, you do seem to live for getting into heated internet fights, and if that's true, you are being disruptive, and if I see another one, you will be blocked for a period of no earlier than a month, because after reading some of your previous commentary, you don't inspire a lot of confidence in me of your ability to back down and cool off. Arcane (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to cool off, because there's no anger and no fight. It's just a debate, and I don't consider it be a very heated debate either. Spirited, maybe, but not really all that heated. Everyone is being civil, and I get a sense that everyone is being patient and recognizing that they don't need to get their way immediately to prevent the wiki from blowing up.
Maybe it's unusual for there to be debates on WikiIndex, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe progress will come from it. Leucosticte (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Kiddo[edit]

  • Please do not use the main namespace as Your sandbox.
  • You got a sandbox under Your user name and can create extra pages in Your userspace for experimental reasons.
  • There You can develop pages until they are fit for the main namespace.

— preceding unsigned comment added by Manorainjan (talkcontribs) – .

What was wrong with the article? Leucosticte (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I should fist ask You what You thought was right with it ;-)

I would say it was in the wrong namespace and should be in Help/ if I would have considered it helpful for anybody which I don't. Since it is also not a Wikiconcept it does not belong to WiniIndex/... and so forth... Manorainjan (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pure Wiki Deletion or Semi-deletion (bad name for it, it's blanking) is a "wiki concept," just because Manorainjan is not familiar with it doesn't change the fact of its existence. [1]. However, L., you can develop that page in your user space, so leave it there for now! You should recognize where Manorainjan is coming from, he's like you, only nastier. --Abd (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

Please stop attempting to force premature establishment of policy. You have attempted to set up outrage about BoyWiki by making inflammatory claims, even opposing undeletion after having created such a fuss over the original deletion. You have proposed deletion of legitimate, even important wikis -- such as, because of possible controversy, you created the page Vanity wiki to attempt to document a non-existent policy. You are trolling, attempting to force decisions prematurely. These are what would be, on Wikipedia, violations of WP:POINT. Stop, or I will request that you be blocked. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed To put this in Wikipedia terms, you're being disruptive to make a point. Quit doing it and move on. How about you add some information about some wikis that aren't yours or proposed policy as you see it? Koavf (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
All the time, I add info about wikis that aren't mine. Check my contribs. Anyhoo, cheers. Leucosticte (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
True, but you missed the point. As usual. --Abd (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree you're trolling. The ice is not only very thin, and there are also a ton of cracks in it. Keep pushing your luck if you want to eat a block, because I want harmony around here, and people disrupting it like you have been do not please me. Arcane (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the term harmony. Let's assume its an euphemism for industrial peace or similar. I agree with the general point made here. But I do not see that it is going anywhere good. I expect L. to play with the foggy limits for a while until he is in the mood for suicide by sysop again. Now, L. has demonstrated sufficiently his unreliability in dealing with policy pages. Therefore I suggest to not ban his account but to forbid him clearly to edit any policy page at all except for their talk pages. Make this for a year without appeal. Appoint one admin for revision in 2016. For every other admin he pesters about that add another year. Problem unsolved: Definition of what is a policy page? Because for making limits clear to L. You got to write it in machine language ;) Declare all types, initialise all variables and constants! Manorainjan (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This place has gotten pretty lame since Sean left. It's obvious that if I hang around much longer, a block is going to be imposed. I'm going to see if WikiApiary is any better. Leucosticte (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking of doing, Manorainjan. Leucosticte, I am hereby imposing a hiatus on editing (or creating) policy pages without consensus. Failure to abide by this will result in a block from editing ranging from a week to a month, depending on the severity of your violation. Arcane (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Since we don't really have policies around here that anyone applies, it doesn't make much difference. Also, it seems impossible to create any new policies even when there's consensus among sysops. Leucosticte (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

new entries[edit]

Great, that You add a wiki from time to time now. Not that it would make a difference and turn this wiki into something of importance ;-)

But If You do, why don't You also add size (pages) and other structural info since You already got to know the statistics pages?

Been away when we discussed about status and uselessness of "NeedsLove?"

By now You should know, that the Add a Wiki-funktion is not well implemented and adding the so called Template:Wiki boilerplate is the better option. Manorainjan (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Which word of "adding the so called Template:Wiki boilerplate is the better option" did You not understand? Manorainjan (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no automated form for doing that. Leucosticte (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of lions[edit]


Your article on me[edit] – I redirected it to my userpage. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Weigh in on WikiIndex:ServerName#Poll?[edit]

I wanted to be sure to draw your attention to a potential decision to change the domain of this wiki. I hope you'll weigh in with your opinion. Thanks! BrandonCsSanders (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


New :-) --Manorainjan 14:00, 16 November 2015 (PST)

PUA Wiki[edit]

So, You are trying to understand the ways of non-pedosexual? But can You tell me the meaning of the abbreviation of PUA? Manorainjan 06:52, 16 June 2016 (PDT)


Hi Nathan, is there any possibility that you might return here. We miss your energy, and your technical competence. Hope to see you soon! Best. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 15:44, 10 December 2017 (PST)

Hey Hoof, thing is, I'm not really all that active in the wikisphere anymore, other than on Kings Wiki, Nathania, and a certain private wiki that's unlisted here at the request of the owner. Occasionally, I'll edit RationalWiki or Wikipedia, but I'm not really supposed to.
Getting globally banned from Wikimedia was kind of a crushing blow, because and Meta-Wiki are sites with applicability to the wikisphere as a whole, and now I can't be involved there. That leaves me wondering, what's left?
It just seems like the wikisphere isn't what it used to be. A lot of activity has moved to other places, like Discord, WordPress, etc. Wikipedia looks to be on the decline too, but it's the only game in town, so people tend to go back there when they can. But in recent years, it seems like more people have been getting kicked off, and they've taken measures to make it harder to come back.
Also, it wasn't good that BoyWiki got deleted, but whatever, the rest of the Internet doesn't seem to like this wiki all that much anyway. Even when you do what they want, they're not happy. People still probably think WikiIndex is "dominated" by me. Leucosticte (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2017 (PST)
Thanks for your prompt reply. Great to hear from you. I did read about your global ban, and I was gobsmacked to be honest. Sadly, I too have been on the receiving end of utterly obnoxious admins, and other editors on enWiki - I have nearly 50 years professional experience in a certain industry, and school kid sysops (who have probably never earned a penny or dime in my industry) revert, rollback, and even threaten to ban me! I find enWiki totally shocking, and editors and admins are behaving totally against their own policies.
As for a replacement for Meta-Wiki, have you thought about Semantic MediaWiki? That is a 'meta' for the SMW suite, they are a bunch of good guys, and crucially, they are also MediaWiki developers. As for what others think of your status here on WikiIndex, I feel they perhaps misunderstand you. I personally strongly value your competence and enthusiasm, and am happy to defend your contributions. Okay, I do not personally agree with some of your interests, and providing you don't try to force-feed them (which you do not), I will be tolerant of them without endorsing them. And I have found you always respectful of my opinions and requests, and genuinely appreciate your efforts in developing and evolving WikiIndex as a whole. So for as long as I have a pulse, and active on here, am happy for you to resume here if you wish. What was the rationale for deleting BoyWiki? The log doesn't give a reason, and its talk page just seems to be full of sock IPs flaming it. I would appreciate your honest recollections if possible. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 18:03, 10 December 2017 (PST)
There was a debate on one of the community pages about deleting the pages on BoyWiki and a bunch of other wikis, and the vote ended up going against me.
(It's actually kinda weird that the Nathania page hasn't been deleted, because that URL has been banned even from BoyChat. Even they don't want to be associated with it.)
There also was pushback against "vanity" pages. It seems to me like WikiIndex was intended to be a bunch of vanity pages. The whole point of a public wiki besides Wikipedia is usually to serve as a repository for vanispamcruftisement that Wikipedia would delete. But, people wanted to pare down the vanity content, which means it had to go elsewhere, either to other wikis (most commonly), or to those wikis' own Project:About pages.
It's also gotten harder to document what goes on at Wikipedia, because so much happens in secret now. When people get ArbCom- or globally banned, there's often no public case opened. They just have a discussion via their listserv or whatever other venue they use, and announce the decision. We're not even told which individuals favored or opposed the decision. The processes aren't as transparent as they used to be, which makes it harder to document wikipolitics.
It just seems like a dark time for the wikisphere. Wikipedia, which serves as its hub, is getting more closed-off, with stuff like the ACTRIAL to get in the way of newbies' (or banned users like me) putting their ideas into effect immediately. There seems to be a growing sense among Wikipedians that their job is mostly finished, and that now mostly they just need to defend what they've already created. When people want to cover a news event, for instance, people say, "Wait ten years and then create this article when it's clear that the topic has enduring interest." Leucosticte (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2017 (PST)

How much honesty is left in You[edit]

We both know pretty well that any person with a connection to the internet can use any number of open proxies and post under any number of different ever changing IPs. I did this myself when I brought the house down on wiki wiki web for demonstrational purpose. --Manorainjan 15:17, 14 December 2017 (PST)

So you admit to wreaking chaos throughout the wikisphere! Leucosticte (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2017 (PST)
Speaking of wikisphere, here WikiIndex:SiteStats I roughly estimate the number of wikis as 1 million by now. Given that the WikiWikiWeb has 36,854 pages, I admit that I deliberately created 12 pages, which amounts to 0.03 % of that wiki and 0.000,000,03 % of wikisphere which constitutes a rather homoeopathic concentration. You see, numerically Your exaggeration is 1:, one to a billion. You are not just shooting a sparrow with cannons, You try to kill an ant by setting free the atomic arsenal of USA. This only shows how much fear is inside You. But this fear is not because of me or anybody else. It is because of what You did in the past and which You can never undo. To try to counteract ones inner fear by attacking others is the one and only cause of every war. It does never work. The fear always remains and increases as much as one goes to war. --Manorainjan 02:26, 15 December 2017 (PST)
P.S.:You completely evaded the actual question of Your honesty or the detail of IP-editing via open proxy, which means, that You where in no way at all able to provide something that could pose as an argument. --Manorainjan 02:31, 15 December 2017 (PST)