Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki"

Revision as of 10:57, 22 September 2014

Table of Contents

I've been curious of this for quite a while . . . why do our TOCs auto-collapse and only display one level of headings, being permanently collapsed for all sub-headings? Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki/Archive 2012-13 will show what I mean. It never used to be like this. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 16:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've no clue! Sorry, MarkDilley

It was because of these 2 edits by me in order to deal with User_talk:Zhuyifei1999#Template:TOCright if this is correct. It is possible to expand the TOC with the [+] button on the left (for a single heading) or with some class= attributes (for a single page). If this does more damage than what it fixed, feel free to revert. --YiFei | talk 03:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind undoing the appropriate edit(s) yourself? I'm not sure which one is the one needing the undoing, and I don't want to break anything else :-/ Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 23:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Just disabled toctree. Some may look better, some may be uglier. --YiFei | talk 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikindex.com

I suggest that Mark or Raymond try to get this Domain and forward it to http://wikiindex.org ASAP.Manorainjan (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would probably wait till it dropped, and did you see on the CommunityPortal - Ray talking about changing the wiki to Index.Wiki or something using the .Wiki TLD? ~~ MarkDilley

The one got nothing to do with the other. I do not mean to move, just to get another domain and to forward to this one, whatever 'this one' may be at that moment. If WikiIndex moves to index.wiki I would still get/keep wikindex.com and forward to index.wiki Manorainjan (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, feel free to grab it! :-) ~~ MarkDilley

I will not acquire another domain, got more than enough already. Best would be to form a public charity which will hold all relevant domains.Manorainjan (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What defines "active"?

Are there any rules how to get, keep and loose admin rights here on the Index? Manorainjan (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want admin rights, you can ask if you want! Though in my very humble opinion, I personally prefer that folks 'earn their stripes'. I think I was nominated (without ever asking) after being a prolific editor here for about 9 months; yet others seemed to have asked for it and got it from virtually day one (not really the best way, as it can cause friction). Keeping those rights is generally a given – I know of only one to lose their admin rights, but then she did quite blatantly abuse said rights, and created a lot of animosity, and drove away a couple of very good editors. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 20:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I definitely do not want to become admin! I'm wondering what active means, because there are admins listed which did not visit this Wiki within years. Manorainjan (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK! ;-/

I guess you are comparing sysops listed in this category against our MediaWiki listing? I don't think there is any hard and fast rule. I'm aware of one admin who barely edits these days, but regularly 'checks in' to make sure all is in order. Do you have anyone in mind who ought to be trimmed from this category? Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You do a lot of guessing ;-) Why I'm asking is, because what I have in my mind how frequent an admin should show up or how contactable an admin should be differs widely from what I see here. Because of my idea what is the requirement I also do not want to become admin because I wouldn't fulfill it. I prefer to have my active phase here, while I have some time and then I got different things to do.Manorainjan (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I got it! In reality, we are volunteers here, and so we arn't 'contracted' to be available on WikiIndex for X-amount of hours or days. Remember, we all have RealLives which can sometimes get in the way of our WikiIndex 'duties' :ppp Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 11:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny place to be for an image

Asia Commons

http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Asia_Commons&diff=prev&oldid=26331

Maybe someone can create a bot which can correct this kind of mistake. That could save hundrets of edits. Manorainjan (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate I don't understand what the mistake is here. Koavf (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

When You look at the DIFF I linked to above, You see Sean Fennel replacing 'wiki_logo=' Image:AsiaCommons logo-topbann1.jpg which was correct, with http://www.wikiindex.com/images/c/ce/AsiaCommons_logo-topbann1.jpg which would most likely be the server side location of the thumbnail of the correct logo picture. Therefore the file-page does not "know" that the logo is used by anyone. It looks deserted and may be deleted. Recently I marked several such pages as {{delete| unused}} which I now think should not be deleted until the funny links are corrected. I hope that can be done by a bot. The notorious inactive-template may have its aggravating effect on the confusion. Manorainjan (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure to convert image urls into image links? I see there was a consensus not to do so in 2006. --YiFei | talk 17:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I see not the least reason why this 'work' was done. And I see tons of reason why one should never do so. I assume that one problem which could not be fixed properly was covered up by another anomaly which now causes more problems as to be expected whenever one does not do the 'right' thing. So, anybody who can explain why one wanted to create a bot that was to mess with the image URLs? Actually what I was upon was to ask for a bot who would reverse the mess. Manorainjan (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Many years ago, but I am remembering why Sean Fennel wanted to do this. It links directly to the wiki instead of the image file, making it a better experience for folks. I think we can now add something like "url link =" for file format, so it isn't as big of a concern, sending people to image file pages. Even though this is a Template:Inactive wiki now, the image link works like I described: Attitude Foods Wiki. ~~ MarkDilley

Some of the conversation is here http://wikiindex.org/User_talk:SeanBot#work_for_your_bot and right below it, the talk about hard linking. ~~ MarkDilley

Would these bot edits be okay for you guys? (File usage shown & logo links to target wiki) I will run this over Category:All. --YiFei | talk 23:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

For me that is fine, because the image-page now lists the Wiki page where the logo is used. — preceding unsigned comment added by Manorainjan (talk • contribs) – 00:31, 21 August 2014‎.

Any objections to start this task on August 23? --YiFei | talk 23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 Support ~~ MarkDilley

YiFei - your bot test looks fine in principle, but I ask two questions.

1. Can you omit the |link= — I would much prefer to be able to click on the logo, and it go to the page file here on WikiIndex (otherwise, how else can we have a direct link to our own files?). The big-text title next to the logo is more than adequate to link to the wiki.
2. Can you amend the edit summary? Something like [[User:YiFeiBot|YiFeiBot]] (owned by [[YiFei]]) replaced bare URL of uploaded logo to [[wikilink]] of logo??

If you can do those alterations, then run another small batch of say 10, then we can see how that works out. If we agree, then you can unleash your bot!! ;-)))) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 23:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, 10 test edits. --YiFei | talk 23:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I would much rather a logo link directly to the source. I think it is a fair use of their property and it is better for the person web browsing than to end up on a page about an image file. I don't see that adding anything to the project. Even though it is a Wikipedia / MediaWiki standard. I am open to a group consensus though ( I was thrilled about YiFei's suggestion I must say! :-). ~~ MarkDilley

I like Hoof Hearted's suggestion about an edit summary, here is my diff: [[User:YiFeiBot|YiFeiBot]] (operated with community consent by [[YiFei]]) replaced bare URL of uploaded logo to [[wikilink]] of logo ~~ MarkDilley

I think it's perfect to leave the linking of the logo as is, to the picture page here. And first of all, I only wanted the unorthodox URL of the Logo to get back to normal. But if You are thinking of different targets, then I suggest to let the target of the Wiki-URL open in another tab/window. I do not think, that most people who click on the name of the Wiki want to leave WiniIndex at that point. Everybody who edits the Entry dos not. I think, all links to external should open in another window b default. But that's another discussion! Manorainjan (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

ahhhh, I like that! ~~ MarkDilley

So, do I go with |link= or not? --YiFei | talk 10:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

 SupportManorainjan (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Manorainjan, Sean, Mark: Last thing: Do I go with |link= or not? --YiFei | talk 06:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean like what they talk about here? Host the image file locally, but have it externally link to the remote wiki? Leucosticte (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's make my POV clear. When we upload a logo or other image file here to WikiIndex, if it is copyright and we claim fair use, then ideally we should include the url of the originating image file on our file page. Those said logos / images we have uploaded should ALWAYS be used on other WikiIndex articles by way of ONLY wikilinks (and never a bare url). The logo shown in our infobox, when 'hovered' with our mouse pointer, will effectively show a 'plainlinks' link - and therefore when clicked on, should go to our own uploaded version (if it is copyright, the viewer can then click on the off-site link if they wish - which clearly shows the 'double arrow' icon). Still on our own articles, if a viewer wishes to go directly to that wiki, then they can click on any of the top four external urls (to the right of the logo [when not in wide logo format], which have the double arrow icon at the end of their url, which is the standard for external off-site urls). We do NOT want all wikilinked logos to go off-site when clicked on, as described in the above example by Leucosticte. So that means NO to |link=. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Vote for YiFeiBot to change logos to wikilinks

Voting about YiFeiBot changing access to our files in Category:WikiLogo via Logo-URL to [[File:Your wiki logo.jgp]].

action	example	your vote
Leave as is	http://wikiindex.org/images/4/41/ACDCWikiLogo.jpg
Start YiFeiBot	[[File:ACDCWikiLogo.jpg]]	SupportManorainjan (talk),  Support Arcane (talk),  Support TeraS (talk),  Neutral Sweetie Belle (talk),  Support Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • Admin / 'Crat • talk2HH •  Support EarthFurst
No opinion	?
Continue 'endless' discussion	..............	SupportLeucosticte

Thanks, ✓ Running --YiFei | talk 03:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the File:Name|Link= solution. I do not think that linking to the file image page serves the wiki community. ~~ MarkDilley

Both have pros and cons, uploaded files can be categorized, hotlinked files save extra work and wiki space... --Wolf | talk 12:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wolf, this discussion is only about logos which have already been uploaded here on WikiIndex, and how we link to them in the article infobox. ;-)
Mark, your method defies the common principles which differ between external links and wikilinks, and is a detriment to the wiki community! Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 13:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll go with the one without "|link=" per the majority above. Sorry, Mark. --YiFei | talk 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done some time ago --YiFei | talk 08:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, but I take issue with Sean's statement that linking to the wiki through the image is detrimental to the wiki community. Where is the backing for such, an outrageous, statement. ~~ MarkDilley

maybe You can discuss this with him in private? (just trying not to have ForestFire ;-) After coming to a resolution You can both publish it here. Manorainjan (talk)

Getting the email function to work for all

• AFAIK Mark said, that eMail works for some accounts.
• Also a clean install of the latest stable version was done without result in this matter.

Therefore I conclude, that this old issue will have to be solved on another level. I assume that technically the installation is OK and works fine. But most likely the Mails from WikiIndex are getting hold up on their journey over the net on account of some blacklisting. That is, what is to be tested for at this moment.

For this task one obviously needs Check user ability which Mark got recently but is reluctant to make use of. This is the point where the progress of this task stopped.

Now, what will happen next?

• Will Mark overcome his aversion
• Or will some other checkuser take over?

Manorainjan (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how to use CheckUser. If you point me in a direction that tells the basics, I could start on something. ~~ MarkDilley

email 10-20 active users, ask them to register their email address if not yet done and create a list of account names, mail addresses and whether thy got or not the mails. Possibly it will show some hint like which mail servers get and which not. Since You should not ask the users to paste You their email adresses on Your talk page, You need to use checkuser to read them out on your own. Your result list could be public without the alias part of the address, just server.Manorainjan (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry to not be clear. I do not know how to use CheckUser. MarkDilley

Help page on MediaWiki about CheckUser

After reading this I believe, this is not what You need.Manorainjan (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Once more: The very next step is to find 10-20 users who have email configured. And this users should be 'active'. For getting this list of users together You need to find out who got their email configured. Checkuser seams to be not this function. Possibly You got this 'ability' even before. Anf If You can not find enough active users who configured email, You got to ask some to do it now. Manorainjan 02:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I've seen a pattern of email addresses that failed to receive emails. (@CUs&Shells: Look at their host.) But what causes the errors could only be seen in the logs of the server (if any). I doubt CUs have access to that. --YiFei | talk 13:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Where do You keep the table with results?Manorainjan (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere but in the database. It shouldn't be public data. --YiFei | talk 02:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As I explained it several times, the table does not need to contain the alias part of the email addresses. The relevant part is the domain. And that is public anyway. There is no harm in publishing it.

Table of results

* server of sender of verification mail. Manorainjan (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible next steps: Mark would like to change the current senders address to something like notifications@wikiindex.org if he knew how to do such change in configuration.

Protection

I request the protection of pages and files related to Augustine Blakely AKA Phoenix until clarification of the whereabouts of this 'person' as an author and 'their' own intentions regarding 'their' creations.

Is there a protection request template? Manorainjan (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a serious complain wit the deletion of the files/pages who's request for deletion was disputed and the dispute was not solved in any way. Manorainjan (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's the issue here. "Author request" is valid. If you need and undeletion, please provide some arguments. --YiFei | talk 02:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The arguments where mostly on the talk pages of the files which got deleted as well. Manorainjan (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Since my link to Phoenix can not serve as reference any more I con only give reference to Deletion log from 11:02, 4 September 2014 to 15:34, 12 September 2014. Manorainjan (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The only text of the argumentation remaining is on User_talk:Leucosticte#Deletion_requests where You got to go through the history because Nathan has the habit to "correct" what he and others have said quite frequently.Manorainjan (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Llwy-ar-lawr

I discovered the existence of this article just now. I've nominated it for deletion because it's not under my real name--as my understanding is that you prefer such articles to be under real names, and I prefer not to give out mine--and it mentions nothing about me except the biased claim that I started a 'war' and the fact that I am a former administrator of a relatively obscure, non-notable wiki. ('Uncyclopedia' refers to the forked version, which some consider an impostor and all know to be less popular than its Wikia-hosted sister.) If there is to be an article on me lurking somewhere, I would prefer that it not come off as an attack, as this one does; but I also prefer that such articles not exist.

I've since turned up several other pseudonymous articles, all of which appear to have been copied here by Sweetie Belle from Mature Spongebob Fanon Wiki. Many of them have deletion tags on them and all seem rather poorly written. As the articles in Category:Pages for deletion have often been there for a few days, and I'm confused as to what to do, I thought I'd drop a note here. My apologies if this is the wrong place. Llwy-ar-lawr (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)