User talk:MarkDilley

Archives:	1,	2,	3

---

Cool, thanks!

Thanks for the welcome, Mark! BushyTree 20:06, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Vandal

User:Deborah has vandalized the Conservapedia article. Proxima Centauri 17:09, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Deborah deleted everything she didn't like again. I've restored it for the moment. Proxima Centauri 12:56, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Sssssss... Get out of bed! {scares Mark out of bed} --Snuffleupagus 12:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

User:Deborah has deleted everything she didn't like again. I've restored it for the moment yet again. I suggest you contact her and ask her to compromise. My computer's broken down and I'm limited to public computers at the moment. Proxima Centauri 10:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I've registered with About Us with my real name but I'm having second thoughts as Internet safety experts advise against this. I haven't activated the account yet. Proxima Centauri 17:03, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Problem user

Dagoth Ur, Mad God has an account here. I suggest you watch him. I don’t know the truth. Proxima Centauri 15:27, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Where's me money? [reaches inside Mark's pocket and steals wallet] --Mr. Krabs 13:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Lost Password and no Email Addy Registered

Hello, I am User:YouWiki and I run Youwiki. I have forgotten my password and I have not registered my email address in the WikiIndex system. Could you please delete my account or send me my password via my talk page on YouWiki (go to User Talk:Willemhenskens) so that I can log in to update my page? Thanks.

A new sysop?

Hi Mark, what would you think about MarvelZuvembie as Sysop? At present, he's the most active user and seems to be interested in sysop-stuff. Best --Wolf | talk 03:09, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm Snuffleupagus! [makes furnace noises through snuffle] f-f-f-f-f-f [in a normal voice] Get out of bed! [pokes Mark with snuffle, Mark jumps out of bed] --Snuffleupagus 12:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Conservaèdia

Hello, I have a question: Are wiki-index articles supposed to be filled with hateful criticism of the wikis? It is weird, but the only wiki in the whole wiki-index with a criticism section is Conservapedia. And it takes most of the article! I think it should be only an index. Do not you think? People of RationalWiki should not be the ones who edit that article! (Gulik, Proxima Centauri)

At every other single article of this wikiindex, the editors of the article on a wiki are its administrators or people involved with the wiki directly. Except Conservapedia. It does not deserve it because it is christian! Liberals talk a lot about discrimination but they are the most discriminating anyone would ever find.

It is really discriminating, I ask you please to intervene and let the CP's people to manage their own entry. I am not a conservapedian, I am not really interested on managing that entry, I just think it is not fair at all. Wiki-index should not be a place where to push personal agendas.

Summary:

• Conservapedia is the only wiki in the whole wikiindex that has a criticism section <- Discrimination
• Rationalwiki editors are the one who edit the entry and revert most other people's edits <- Discrimination
• Conservapedia is the only wiki in the whole wikiindex whose own editors are let to manage the article on their wiki. <- Discrimination
• Guilk has menaced with adding more criticism. <- Harassment

I think it should be enough with a sentence like "This site only accepts contributions from a biblic christian point of view, any other kind of contributions can lead to a block of the user" to explain users the likes of being blocked there

I hope you can intervene. This whole thing is sick and discriminating

The neutrality of this beautiful wiki-index is being riskedEros of Fire 08:10, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia, RationalWiki etc

There’s an edit war in progress over Conservapedia, RationalWiki, and The Conservapedia RationalWiki war. More can be found on the talk pages of all 3 articles and in the page histories. I’m biased in favour of RationalWiki. Conservapedia supporters would an impartial administrator to intervene. I will try to summarize objectively.

1. ’’’RationalWiki point of view:’’’ Conservapedia deserves the criticism. Conservapedia regularly blocks and deletes dissent on its website. They want to prevent criticism similarly here. There are especially large articles criticizing Conservapedia on Wikiindex because there are special problems with Conservapedia.
2. ’’’ Conservapedia point of view:’’’ RationalWiki are wiki vandals and irresponsible atheists. We struggle to keep our wiki Christian and fundamentalist and RationalWiki vandals cause us constant problems. (As a RationalWikian I feel this criticism is true of a few RationalWikians but not all). No other wiki has such long prominent criticism and Conservapedia shouldn’t either. If criticism is allowed here critical sections can spread to other wikis and explode out of control. Some users who appear neutral also feel that criticism shouldn’t be allowed because of this.

I’ve considered things. It can be a shock when a user doesn’t know that he/she is committing a blockable offense and suddenly is looking at a ban window. This can happen on many wikis. Problems with users being blocked for expressing dissenting views aren’t unique to Conservapedia. To address this I’ve made a new category, Wikis with a strong viewpoint. To be neutral I’ve included many secular wikis as well as religious wikis in this category. Proxima Centauri 04:45, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I.m thinking of a 4th article stating mainly the Conservapedia point of view. As I see it Andrew Schlafly has 20,000 pages to express his right-wing Christian fundamentalist point of view. He has it because his mother can afford to finance it. His views don't merit that coverage. I don't think 3 pages here to counteract 20,000 pages is to much. I won't have much time for a few hours. I'll be busy on RationalWiki refuting the latest Schlafly stuff that Darwin and other evolutionists are responsinble for what Hitler did. I'll have time to drop back here.

I don't think this type of essay article will spread throughout Wikindex. Users arn't interested enough in writing them. If essay articles develop they could potentially make Wikiindex more interesting and help the wiki to grow. I have no opinions one way or the other about Wookieepedia as I don't know the wiki. Proxima Centauri 02:29, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Four articles about Conservapedia seems like a bit much. JazzMan 02:32, 23 November 2008 (EST)

cool features

I thought I remembered a page here at WikiIndex that described the "cool features" that some wiki have. Alas, I can't seem to find it today. Could you help me find it? Or am I mis-remembering WikiFeatures ? --DavidCary 13:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)

It's Category:GreatFeature. :-) --MarvelZuvembie 21:26, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you, that's exactly what I wanted. --DavidCary 09:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)

sushi

I don't understand the purpose of Category:SUSHIwiki. Are there enough wiki that discuss raw fish that we need an entire category about it? Or does "SUSHI" mean something entirely different here? --DavidCary 09:55, 9 December 2008 (EST)

In this case, it's clone of WikiWikiWeb, not a foodstuff. But I bet that someday there will be multiple wikis which devote themselves to sushi. :-) --MarvelZuvembie 18:32, 11 December 2008 (EST)

yep, a WikiEngine ~~ MarkDilley

Addition of a wikiFactor?

Dear MarkDilley,

I have just started the page Proposal:wikiFactor, and it would be wonderful if you would take a look. All the best -- Carl McBride (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Re:hint

Thanks, I actually had seen both options used, thus didn't really know which one was the recommended one :) Patheticcockroach 03:03, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, when using Template:Tl, the infobox is almost totally hidden, and the logo is replaced with a "this wiki is inactive" picture. While when keeping the wiki template with wiki_status = Inactive, the infobox still appears normally. Patheticcockroach 03:11, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah, right, categories remain the same when using Template:Tl with wiki_status = Inactive (example). Patheticcockroach 03:23, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Wiki License

Hi Mark. I just asked the same question of Speckmade: how do we categorize sites which claim copyright of user submission within the "Wiki License" parameter of {{Wiki}}? Currently there are categories for most of the "copyleft" wiki licenses, but there's no way to categorize wikis which don't follow this practice. I'd make one myself, but I'm not really sure what to call it. I assume that people will want to know when a site retains copyright over submissions. Thanks, MarvelZuvembie 16:42, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

OK, thanks. I may just make a category called "Site retains copyright" or something. But, I think I'll wait for Speckmade to respond as well before I do anything. :-) --MarvelZuvembie 17:58, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

here... more...

Great! I fight against these meaningless link captions too. If only one could search for them! ;-) Greetings --Wolf | talk 05:55, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Maybe I'm missing something, but your MarkDilley page looks broken

Hi,

You just welcomed me (thanks by the way) and invited me to turn myself into an article (like you have). So I looked at the MarkDilley article to see how you were doing it and the following things look broken to me:

• You have some HTML showing up on the top of the page (part of a table),
• You have 'Image:Sparkitchaticon-small.gif' showing on the page (but no image so this is a redlink inviting people to upload the image) and
• You have the text 'Talk to me' which links to 'User_talk:Sparkit' instead of this page. There is no 'User_talk:Sparkit' on the wiki, so this is a redlink that invites people to edit the page.

That aside, I think I get the point of the two pronged thing. I might give it a go when I have some other stuff done elsewhere. David Shepheard 19:39, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Me as an article

As per your suggestion on my talk page, I've added myself as an article. Please feel free to add any categories that need to be added. David Shepheard 12:30, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Dicuss, warn, or block?

Hi Mark,

I reverted all the contributions of an anonymous user today (Special:Contributions/67.224.218.67). Although he wasn't spamming, I don't feel that his personal assessment of the value of these wikis is relevant to this site, particularly as they were expressed. I could block him outright, but I wonder if it would be more appropriate to give him a warning or simply state on his talk page that he's missed the point of this site. Any thoughts?

--MarvelZuvembie 19:27, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Update: I've opted for "discuss". --MarvelZuvembie 13:48, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for getting back to me, Mark. I agree that we could review wikis (and of course there's always some subjectivity in deciding a wiki's status and in how to describe a wiki's content). I think it could add to the usefulness of the site. However, it wasn't how I perceived the site's mission as it stands right now. And if when we do review wikis, I hope it's something a bit more informative than "this wiki sux", which is approximately the level of usefulness that I see this particular user's comments as being. Please let me know if I get too far off base, though. --MarvelZuvembie 12:51, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

After reading the Wikia article, I was wondering if this wiki was here to list wikis or review them. See my comments in the Criticism section of the Wikia talk page. --David Shepheard 12:38, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Rereading the Welcome page, I noticed the statement "We strive to share wiki experiences and encourage wiki folk to think about issues in wikidom." I guess you can't really do that without giving your personal perspective. I'm just so used to the "neutral point of view" ethos of Wikipedia, I extended it to this wiki. ;-) I agree that providing one's impression of a wiki could be helpful to visitors. I just would hate to see more edit wars like occurred with the entry for Conservapedia. --MarvelZuvembie 22:16, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Excellent thoughts from both of you - thanks! In my mind, one of the most amazing things about wiki is that it can provide a path forward in conflict. Given that a wiki can provide space for an endless EditWar - what other options are available? Can either party think of a way to work with the other? Should one or both be banned? etc... Wikipedia (the 800 pound gorilla in the room :-) does provide many people to think that wiki is neutral point of view - but it is certainly a standard for that wiki. I am interested in this question as a community question. I know what I had in mind when I (and others) created this wiki - and how that fits with what others think and want is very important to me. Best, MarkDilley

Hmm. Maybe this is a topic that you should move off of your discussion page (and the Wikia discussion page) onto a more general discussion page. My personal perspective is that I originally came here only to set up the page for Spelljammer Wiki and run away. But, as I'm now hunting for other Dungeons & Dragons related wikis, this is as good a place as any, for me to 'dump' links to them. For me the size of the wiki is the most important thing in your statistics. (The wiki engine is relevant, but if a cool wiki has a wiki engine I dislike, I'll still visit it.) Something else that is important to me (but probably not for WikiIndex) is understanding if a Dungeons & Dragons wiki deals with 'canon' information (i.e. it is an encyclopedia that describes the existing D&D campaign setting) or if it exists to encourage people to create 'fanon' content (i.e. it is a work of colaborative fan expansion to the original D&D campaign setting). Things like the skin that Wikia forces people to view (and/or adverts) are largly uninteresting to me. However, if there was a policy, I would try to make sure I didn't make any edits that broke the policy.

I think that doing things like mentioning on the category page of a wiki farm (like Wikia), that some people do not like adverts, does not really help to extend that 'complaint'/'negative feature' out to all the wikis on that wiki farm. I wonder if Template:Wiki could (or even should) be updated to include a line that mentions if a wiki has adverts (or any other multi-wiki features that people might like/dislike). I wonder if Template:Wiki should have alternative 'subtemplates' that cater for groups of wikis that use the wiki engine to make a specialist type of wiki (like an encyclopedia of the fiction within a computer MMORPG like World of Warcraft) where specific wiki policies (such as encouraging or banning fan fiction) are either attractive features or things that make the wiki unsuitable for the purpose of the reader. David Shepheard 06:42, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

EDIT: MarvelZuvembie has already done this. See: WikiIndex_talk:Community_talk#Site_reviews. David Shepheard 07:09, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

It's certainly possible to add extra fields to the {{Wiki}} template. Naturally, I'd recommend creating a proposal for such first. (I think there's a link to proposals on the Community Portal.) Whether or not a wiki allows advertising seems like a logical addition to the template. Just recently, Speckmade added the "license" field to let people know how their work will be copyrighted/attributed if they should submit information to a wiki. Of course, even without adding it to the template, you can always add to the text.

As far as the canon/fanon issue, I think I created a Category:Fanon a while back. Whoops, nope, it wasn't me, but someone else did. There's also a few wikis tagged with the non-existant Category:Fandoms. Taxonomy around here is from the ground up, although I've done some sorting just to try and lump like items together. I don't think there's a Category:Canon, but there could be. Regardless, that's totally appropriate info to add to a wiki's article. --MarvelZuvembie 18:59, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

It would take ages for someone to shoot around looking for all the wikis that should be added to Category:Canon. I know that Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha (and Memory Beta) contain canon (of Categeory:Star Wars and Category:Star Trek), but you need someone with geek-level knowledge of the subject matter to make the judgement call.

As for Category:Fandoms that has got to be slightly different to Category:Fanon. There are plenty of things that fans might do that do not involve canon or fanon. Maybe Category:Fandoms should be the parent category to Category:Canon and Category:Fanon. David Shepheard 07:17, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

Arbitrary celebration

As of this moment, we have 4,444 articles. :-) --MarvelZuvembie 20:04, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Heh. I saw you put that up on the, er, "message of the day"(?) field. Nice! --MarvelZuvembie 20:27, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Block again

I've blocked a user for this edit. User:Huw Powell and various unregistered users have been setting out to cause me problems for weeks. Proxima Centauri 14:03, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

I have asked you to provide evidence for your accusation. Your response was to block me and lock the talk page. You are the only one to blame for your problems. [1] 38.108.111.63 14:49, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

The discussion is re-opened. But I think, this question has never to be answered. Have a nice day! :-) --Wolf | talk 15:38, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

Barbara (PS, that's my mother's name), you are the problem. You are a power hungry, anguished person. I never set out to "cause [you] problems", I came here because you whined on rationalwiki and rationalwikiwiki about your own behavior being reported on. Huw Powell 06:41, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Admin abuse by Proxima Centauri

Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated here. Thank you 38.108.111.63 14:49, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

Once more, Proxima is abusing her admin rights at RationalWiki. She has locked the article, and is taking advantage of RW being down to spam pointless links to her own pet wiki, Liberapedia. She also blocked a user (Nx) for correcting her incompetence. I repeat, she is a power-mad authoritarian with very poor language and comprehension skills. (I can footnote those accusations if necessary). Huw Powell 00:59, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

These have been trolling and being deliberately abusive, if you aren't satisfied with the way I deal with trolls I'm close to leaving. Proxima Centauri 02:46, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Do, please. Phantom Hoover 03:09, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Mark, I see you have unblocked Nx and Phantom Hoover. Good move, neither of them mean harm. Can you also unlock the RationalWiki article? As of now Proxima Centauri is preventing anyone else from correcting her errors (and simply cleaning it up) by (ab)using her admin rights. If you want to chat about this behind closed doors or whatever, I think my email is enabled (or ask me on my talk page if you prefer another venue). I understand she has been very helpful here at times with the chores of blocking wandals, locking pages, and burning offensive edits, but seriously, this issue is so trivial it's not funny. It certainly did not require her to run around smacking people left and right. Huw Powell 04:01, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Update: I see edit buttons on the RW article. So either it's been unprotected or someone made me a sysop? Huw Powell 04:04, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I edited the "loss of service" section. I hope what I wrote meets the standards and goals of this site. Huw Powell 04:15, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah, I see, PC only protected it for a couple of days and it expired. Huw Powell 04:22, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Spam

An unregistered user spammed this onto your userpage, later replaced it with links to wikis so I reverted it and protected the page. If you did it yourself without logging in you are an administrator and can still ediit the page. I've deleted the page and restored only edits by users who I know are administrators here. Proxima Centauri 03:52, 16 July 2009 (EDT) Proxima Centauri 03:44, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

My attempt at dispute resolution

Hey All, wanted to see if you were interested in dispute resolution, my suggestion is here ~~ MarkDilley

(I've moved the comments that were placed here, to the page MarkDilley created for this purpose. Lumenos 06:33, 30 August 2009 (EDT) )

Thanks for weighing in!

About edit conflict on WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines, "05:09, 4 September 2009 MarkDilley (Talk | contribs) (27,735 bytes) (maybe stomped after an edit conflict - will try to fix)"

I guess you can see when I have a page open for edit? Lumenos 01:30, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

nope :-) ~~ MarkDilley

I did get an edit conflict but I merged it. Lumenos 01:30, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

I got an edit conflict and tried to merge it, for my level of experience it is just looking at the diffs, would be interesting to know if I could do it easier. ~~ MarkDilley

I made some adjustments and replied to you at WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#Notes_to_editors_of_this_page. Sorry if that was confusing. I put more work into things if I think something will come of them. Lumenos 01:30, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

I appreciate that. Was trying to let things cool down, still interested in moving stuff to the talk page of affected WikiIndex articles. ~~ MarkDilley

Is a broad consensus allowable?

About the owners or controllers of WikiIndex: How do those in power here feel about "consensus", in the sense of inviting readers, editors, and admins to collaborate to formulate policy, etc? Lumenos 01:35, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

I think that consensus is an ideal situation which we should strive for. Super majority should be considered in absence of that ideal. ~~ MarkDilley

Vulnerabilities of this wiki

Nx claims he can do uuuh... something. Do you know if this is true or how to prevent it? Lumenos 06:50, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Replace the extension with the new version. The one you are using contains an SQL injection vulnerability. Nx 06:57, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, I am working on try to get the upgrade. Best, MarkDilley

Nx says he doesn't like me knowing when he is online. I'm not too comfortable using it on my user page anymore. You might want to consider just removing it. I don't like the idea of getting the law involved. If we can provide some (more) concessions to those who know how to fix (or exploit) stuff like this, they may help us out (more). Lumenos 04:17, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

The slow decline into Centauriism continues... Phantom Hoover 04:32, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Got any better ideas, Snarky? Lumenos 07:47, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

I was merely commenting on the sudden disappearance of complex sentence structure and the belief that the law will be involved in everything. Phantom Hoover 08:09, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh oh umm I knew that... assuming your telling the truth this time, that is. <serious>Thanks for explaining. Unless you are lying. </serious> Can you turn off user=crazy mode now please? Lumenos 16:32, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Fine then. UPDATE people SET sanity="questionably sane", irritation_level=100 WHERE name="Lumenos"; Phantom Hoover 17:01, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Ahhh! Oh noes. Now I gosta leave Lumeneti. Must attend to the insignificant things like eating and sleeping. *Hugs PH* You're the specialest hobgoblin eva! Lumenos 17:09, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

I suppose if someone hacked the wiki "anonymously" then the law wouldn't be involved. Lumenos 16:32, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

The tenacious persistence of you and your allies, sometimes makes me wonder, if the real administration tried to prevent you from being here, what you would resort to. When I say tenacious persistence, I don't mean emailing higher powers, but how you feel entitled to say delete the vast majority of an article, multiple times. Lumenos 16:32, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

RationalWiki, heavy handed?

Nice work. You deleted everything about the wiki, which will shortly be up again. And you also locked the article. Wiki Index is taking a nosedive as the trolls take over, in my considered - very carefully considered - opinion. Huw Powell 06:02, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Actually Huw, not quite everything was deleted. Lumenos 07:59, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, only all of the text. Phantom Hoover 08:07, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Here's "your" article. It seems to have some similar wiki's missing but anyone can fix that. Plus you get to see some of the real inner-workings of "reason in action". I'd say this much better reflects the "community property" that Nx said he would favor. What's the big deal? Not as pretty anymore? Lumenos 16:39, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

I feel bad for Nx, however. Lumenos 16:54, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Deletions and Protections

I have to agree with the comments from others that removing the descriptions from Liberapedia, RationalWiki, Conservapedia, A Storehouse of Knowledge and RationalWikiWiki is unnecessary. The only one of those that has been edited much recently is RationalWiki's page, and the real argument about that one was finished days ago. Of the other four, the only edits in the last week have been from me updating the page statistics on two, and Phantom Hoover fixing a grammatical error on another.

In other words, the descriptions for all these pages are already agreed, so there's no point in moving everything to the talk page. Please can you unprotect those five pages and move the descriptions back to their correct place. rpeh 07:24, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Hi I've not been much involved in the debates about those wikis and I cannot see any explanation for cutting their articles to their talk pages. Do you think you could add a note to each one explaining why their contents were moved to talk? Cheers.--Bob M 15:54, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

(Mark's response copied from my (Bob M's) talk page) Hello - here is a bit of an explanation about current decisions. Best, MarkDilley

Hi Mark. Thanks for coming back. The link goes to a rather involved and heated discussion and is a bit hard to follow. My point is that it would seem to be a good idea to explain on the talk page of each of the wikis involved what exactly the problem is, and what action needs to be taken to get the description back. At the moment, any innocent party landing on any of those pages will be left wondering what is going on.--Bob M 08:36, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

I moved the horribly confused "debate maps" to a subpage. I apologize for that, and not moving them sooner. Everything that is left of the sections I created, seems to be organized and relevant (although I'm sure others won't see it that way but they can edit the page, just like it is an article). Lumenos 08:56, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Actually, I don't want to get into a debate about that side of it. My point is that nobody reading the articles themselves or their talk pages will understand what is going on or how to resolve it.--Bob M 10:19, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Is there something preventing you from fixing that? Too late. I added links to this section on the five listed wikis. Lumenos 13:21, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

(outdent) "Move to article page when agreed upon by 3 Sysops and 3 people involved in the conflict and clear up confusing line, hopefully" - There's no conflict! And there aren't three active sysops either, but that's another matter. Can you just move the descriptions back please? rpeh 04:21, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

In addition, the only controversial bit in any of the articles, the bit on RW's downtime, is now outdated. Phantom Hoover 10:34, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Umm how are you judging that? I didn't feel like edit waring over the issue of allowing more criticism, but now it looks like we are headed for entire pages devoted to criticism. I could be wrong. Lumenos 12:55, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Having fun? You're the only one who seems to think there is a controversy... Oh, and just because the spellchecker doesn't flag "waring" doesn't mean it's the right word. Just in case you are using it in policy development pages. Huw Powell 02:33, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

I think that many of those who post criticisms in talk pages, would prefer pages for criticism. You know like all those that Nx tucked away into "archive1". There are plenty left outside the "archive". If these people don't feel they are being heard, then they leave. The way it should be, right? Do you think this is true or false, Human? Or will this be another one of my questions that you simply dismiss as "incomprehensible" (to you)? Lumenos 04:49, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Mark Dilley wins another victory in the fight against unnecessary complexity

I guess I was expecting dozens of people to each insert their pet peeve into the WikiIndex talk:Blocking Policy#draft blocking policy proposal, making it balloon up into a huge monster of complexity.

I am pleasantly surprised that you made it shorter. Also, it makes me happy that you deleted my negative language about "warning" and replaced it with a more positive alternative. --DavidCary 01:44, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

As pretend assistant to the sheriff's deputy, I do hereby tag this here section for banishment [duplication] to the less popular talk page of a certain uuuh "Fandom Poover", have I got that right? Something like that [rpeh (because rpeh undeleted this section after Lumenos deleted it)]. This is in keeping with Section 1 - C of "WikiIndex Policies and Guidelines" under section "Enforcement against editors". As always, your input on matters of policy would be much appreciated and any objections or modification to this here constructive information tag, would be as well. If you modify or endorse this informative tag, please place your user name after this message and strike out any names appearing there at the time of your edit. Thank you for reading this informative tag and considering ways we may work together to resolve sensitive issues such as these. (Lumenos) (Updated Lumenos 08:07, 11 September 2009 (EDT))[Updated Lumenos 04:39, 12 September 2009 (EDT)]

The policies you have made up are not site policy; they are written solely by you, and have no consensus. Phantom Hoover 13:19, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

What policy have I made up? Lumenos 17:57, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

It is more a matter of whether the administration or other editors mind (or prefer) that I relocate a section that appears to have no useful information in it. Lumenos 17:57, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Is there a policy against doing so? Lumenos 17:57, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

That is all I have to say. Phantom Hoover 10:12, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

If you could write the rules, what would they say? Lumenos 12:48, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Sysops should have to pass basic tests of mental age, and protection should only be used in the most dire of vandal attacks. Phantom Hoover 13:15, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

<rolls eyes> Another genius suggestion. I sure am glad rpeh undeleted your comment here so we can explore this further. Could you describe this test in more detail? Lumenos 13:25, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

There will be standard tests available; Trent might know. Phantom Hoover 13:32, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

You are serious? So do you think we should employ those tests here? Will they share them? Lumenos 14:02, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

I would recommend a little java appellate with a virtual square peg and two virtual wholes: one round, one square. Admins can't log on with out placing the peg in the appropriate whole. Tmtoulouse 14:05, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Epic win. Phantom Hoover 14:15, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Doh! This is nothing but HOBGOBLINTRIES! (That having been said.) Honor to speak with you, Sir. Lumenos 14:11, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

...if that's your REAL name. Lumenos 15:56, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

"Archive" most of this page to subpage

Mark if you don't object I plan to move everything on this page, posted before "143 Conservaèdia", to a subpage. It supposedly helps with compatibility and I think it makes it easier to read. I don't know how to make neat archive icons, I would just put a link at the top of the page. I'll wait four days for you to object. (This is to save you time in responding.) Lumenos 19:43, 8 September 2009 (EDT) [Updated comment in bold.]

Please let me know if you don't appreciate me doing things like this. Lumenos 12:29, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Lumenos has a good idea for once. Archive the first sixty or so sections to a User talk:MarkDilley/Archive1 page please? Huw Powell 04:37, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

RationalWikiWiki

Hi Mark. do you think you could comment on this talk page: Talk:RationalWikiWiki. thanks.--Bob M 03:49, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Bob - will get to it tomorrow night or this weekend. Best, MarkDilley

Could you also address this "article": "Huw Powell"? I am not a wiki, I am a free man! Huw Powell 19:58, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

It is the convention of this wiki to put people with real names into the main namespace - and pseudonym accounts to stay in the user namespace. I have deleted the page as you requested. ~~ MarkDilley

I did not realize that convention existed here. It seems odd to me to have editors of the wiki come up on "random page", but then again, I don't know what thought went into the convention. Anyway, thank you for doing what I asked. I am editing my comment above to remove the "red link". Do you think it would make sense for me to get renamed as a pseudonym I often use on wikis, "human", so as to fit your convention? Huw Powell 16:52, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Articles for users with with real names

This is inspired by comments by Huw Powell in the RationalWikiWiki section above:

I don't think that it is such a bad idea to index real-world people who run wikis. However, a lot of user pages do seem to be written in a very random fashion and I wonder how much usefulness someone will get from visiting a page that is not an encyclopedic entry about the person.

If WikiIndex wishes to continue with this (possibly very useful) convention, perhaps there should be some sort of templates that can add value to articles about users. For example, it might be nice to have a template that gives a list of wikis that the user administers and/or writes on. Or it might be useful for users to list the (WikiIndex) categories they are most interested in. There are already some infoboxes that allow people to tell others about the languages they speak, but these are not universally used.

I think that if you improved the 'people' articles it could also be worth going to the wiki articles and then adding a list of active WikiIndex users. That way, if anyone had a problem with an article about a wiki, they could quickly go and find expert help. David Shepheard 12:27, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

What David says makes sense to me. Huw Powell 04:38, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

7

Yes, you are right[2] :-) - it was a typo. Greetings, Wolf | talk 03:16, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Philsworld

The creator of the article Philsworld recently blanked it as the wiki is no longer active. I have changed it back, but substituted the Template:Tl template for the Template:Tl template. I presume that this is generally how we would prefer to indicate wikis which have reached the end of their lifespan. --MarvelZuvembie 17:10, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Please help develop explicit rules

Following the recent incidents surrounding the RationalWiki article, I have come to the conclusion that we need a set of really explicit policies and guidelines. I don't like this, but it's necessary. I have started work on Wikiindex:Policies_and_Guidelines and I would appreciate your input.

What I don't (yet) have is method. Not sure what should go on the talk page and what shouldn't. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 04:08, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Proposed "policy" should go in sections on the page. Discussion, with the same section names, should be on the talk page. What gets accepted/agreed on at the talk page, becomes the eventual main page. I invite you to RationalWiki where we wrote, and then rewrote, our site policies in such a fashion. Come to my talk page (user:human) if you want me to show you around. I'm not telling you what to do, just offering an example that worked for us. Huw Powell 04:42, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Spam blacklist fail

Hi Mark. For some reason, My spam blacklist doesn't seem to be working. The last time I tested it several days ago, it worked fine. Today it doesn't seem to work. I'm trying to use it to prevent the fraudulent essay spammers from adding links to their sites. --MarvelZuvembie 17:40, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Never mind. I missed that the offending words had to be a part of a link, not just any regular expression. It's working fine. I just was too lazy in my typing. :-P --MarvelZuvembie 21:18, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Welcome thanks!

Thank you Mark :) Sj 19:34, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

New status?

Question about New status at Category talk:New. --EarthFurst 19:48, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

Doppelgänger-Account

Someone created a new account User:MarkDiIley which could mixed-up with your user account. I blocked him. :-) --Wolf | talk 11:11, 8 November 2009 (EST)

The next one: User:MarkDiIIey - one combination left ;-) Greetings, Wolf | talk 03:33, 10 November 2009 (EST)

The last one of this kind: User:MarkDilIey. --Wolf | talk 07:14, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Oh, look! I have one, too! :P User:MarveIZuvembie. --MarvelZuvembie 13:46, 7 December 2009 (EST)

Broken Interwikis?

Hi Mark,

I've been gone a while, but in visiting today I noticed that the foreign language interwiki links in the "includeonly" section of Template:Tl are appearing as red links within the article (see English Wikipedia, for example) instead of as interwiki links in the lefthand column. Perhaps a change to MediaWiki's configuration has caused this? Just thought you should know.

--MarvelZuvembie 15:25, 1 March 2010 (EST)

Sysop

Hi! I request sysop status here. Thank you! Erwin 08:55, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

But why? Of...Erwin 11:49, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

See the confirmation from founder of site, give me now sysop status...--Erwin 15:54, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Hi Erwin. For completing your sysop's button collection, take a tour around our wiki collection. And I'm sure, some of them will highly appreciate hour help. I guess for this wiki the answer is just no. (Maybe my English is too bad: I cannot discover any confirmation in John's answer.) Best regards --Wolf | talk 16:20, 1 April 2010 (EDT)