Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki

Questions about this website...

Greetings,

I am expanding the information on my 'Nationstates' history onto this website though for my rugby league page (PopularFreedom Rugby League) one of your admins noted it was probably best if I put that elsewhere.

Do you wish for me to relocate the entire information to another website or just the rugby stuff?

Also, what sites might you recommend? I currently have a geocities website for my nation but I liked the whole wiki idea for it too.

Again, sorry if I have not formatted or done anything here correctly, and if you wish me to move my stuff all good, and apologies for me not following any protocol I might have overlooked

Sincerely, Eagle Scream99.237.166.143 17:58, 20 February 2008 (EST)

I just saw your message and replied to you at User talk:99.237.166.143 - Best, MarkDilley

Bulbapedia database error

I am writing to you about a wiki i have been trying access for a few days, BULBApedia. It seems anytime you try and access the wiki all i get is:

Database error A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

   (SQL query hidden)

from within function "Article::pageData". MySQL returned error "1033: Incorrect information in file: './themozz_mediawiki/page.frm' (localhost)".

I was wondering if someone can fix this?

- Lord Ares

do you mean - http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page ? if so, the contact information I found is: [email protected] - also, you might be able to get some contact information from the people who run this wiki - maybe you could build out their page here on WikiIndex? Good luck! Best, MarkDilley

make a main page for a wiki

i've built a wikipedia named Nepwiki and i want it to have a main page for itself. But i'm having problems in making one. Can you please suggest things i have to do to make a main page. Thank you

I think you may be confusing a wiki page here at WikiIndex and an actual wiki, does that sound right? If not, please give me a link to your wiki. Best, MarkDilley

Conservapedia, RationalWiki etc

... The discussion at Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war continues here ...

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 like 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 partly true of a few RationalWikians but not all. Some RationalWikians vandalize Conservapedia. The vandals don't think that is wrong because they have such a low opinion of Conservapedia. Atheists are on average as responisble as other people.] These RationalWiki users have created a website to criticise Conservapedia, and have basically been given full editorial privilege to edit the CP page on this wiki. Understandably, the CP page now includes a long criticism section Additionally, much of the RationalWiki page is a criticism of Conservapedia (less so now), and there is an entire additional page (The Conservapedia RationalWiki war)dedicated to yet more criticisms of Conservapedia. No other wiki has such long prominent criticism and Conservapedia shouldn’t either. Criticism does not seem to be the point of this wiki. 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 04:47, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I've editorialized PC's take on thie issue a bit, since I can better represent the views of Conservapedia than he can.

If we are going to decide this issue based on whether CP is "bad enough" instead of on whether this wiki is supposed to be a criticism, then I should point out that many of the criticisms are exaggurated, isolated issues, or just plain false. If we are going to have this discussion, then I'll expand my explanation. JazzMan 13:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I can understand that folks from Conservapedia don't want the page on WikiIndex about their wiki to be overrun by criticism - and I can also understand that people want to talk about problems they have with the wiki. Why not take it to a page Constructive Criticism of Conservapedia and simply make one line / link on the Conservapedia page pointing to this. ~~ MarkDilley

I'd be ok with that, if this wiki wants to open itself up for criticism sections. I think it would make sense to remove all criticism from RationalWiki (as well as Conservapedia, obviously), and delete The Conservapedia RationalWiki war. In my greatest dreams, users who have admitted to and condone further vandalism on CP should not be allowed to edit the constructive criticism page, but seeing as how these are likely the only types of people who are going to want to add to the page anyway, I would have to settle for hoping they can keep their critisism fair and verifiable.

(There is a third solution here: just put a blurb in the CP article about RationalWiki, a site mainly devoted to criticising Consrvapedia. If users want to hear these criticism, they can hear it from the horses mouth. Err... I mean they can hear it from the horses mouth... while the horse is actually in it's own stable.) JazzMan 02:38, 23 November 2008 (EST)

I don't think The Conservapedia RationalWiki war page does either site any favours here. I haven't looked around WikiIndex enough to know exactly what its aims & boundaries are, but I'm guessing that it should be relatively neutral about the wikis it covers. Obviously it should mention that RW is heavily critical of CP, but all those criticisms don't need to be reiterated in full here when readers can go straight to RW to find them.

I think RW is being misrepresented somewhat. It isn't specifically a liberal site, nor entirely an anti-Conservapedia site. It may have started as a reaction to CP, & a lot of content & discussion at RW still focuses on CP, but that isn't its raison d'etre, which is about examining & refuting various extremist & anti-scientific ideas. The "war on Conservapedia" exists to some extent, especially on the WIGO pages, but I don't agree with carrying it out on third-party sites like here, especially drawing attention to things like vandalism of CP, which isn't endorsed by RW policy per se or condoned by all members. Also, contrary to what the "war" article says, we (most of us) aren't generally hostile to CP users who choose to edit on both wikis.

That page really belongs on RW (where it's already been copied) or on RWW, rather than a neutral site. 79.76.178.216 10:11, 23 November 2008 (EST) (RW editor Weaseloid)

I'll delete it here. Proxima Centauri 11:51, 23 November 2008 (EST)

I've deleted The Conservapedia RationalWiki war. A great deal of work went into writing it. Instead I've added external links to RationalWiki articles on the RationalWiki website. That means "they can hear it from the horses mouth... while the horse is actually in it's own stable." I hope that compromise is acceptable. Proxima Centauri 12:17, 23 November 2008 (EST)

I'm happy with the current situation, and I think that PC will agree. If she's not, I'm very willing to work within the current structure. JazzMan 17:31, 23 November 2008 (EST)

I feel I've compromised a great deal. It seems Conservapedians want a whitewash of their controversial wiki. I've protected a version of the article that I feel is a compromise. Proxima Centauri 02:57, 24 November 2008 (EST)

I think it’s important that users know they can get themselves blocked for writing things that wouldn’t lead to a block on most wikis. Seeing a ban window unexpectedly can be a shock. That’s why I left the warning in the compromise. Proxima Centauri 09:01, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Because I support ConsolidateInformation, I am glad that Proxima Centauri moved "The Conservapedia RationalWiki war" from WikiIndex to http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Essay:The_Conservapedia_RationalWiki_War . That seems to be a much better place for it. I'm also glad that Proxima Centauri made a general category, category: wikis with a strong viewpoint that is helpful to Wikiindex readers.

I've been summoned to act as an neutral admin[1]. But by the time I arrived, it appears that JazzMan, Proxima Centauri, Weaseloid, etc. have already worked out a compromise.

Is there nothing for me to do here? Excellent. Good show, people! --DavidCary 11:43, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Heh. Not so fast. ;-)

In keeping with Mark Dilley's suggestion, maybe a compromise could be reached by putting Gulik/Proxima Centauri's guidelines for editing on Conservapedia on a page after a "/". --MarvelZuvembie 01:27, 29 November 2008 (EST)

New category suggested: Hate Groups

For groups like Metapedia or Conservapedia. --Gulik 21:19, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I don't think "hate groups" would be the proper name for those wikis (although they have strong elements of hate). --Michaeldsuarez 12:40, 2 December 2008 (EST)

What would be a better name? "Delusional Bigots" isn't very "neutral", no matter how accurate it might be. --Gulik 15:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Perhaps a better name would be Category:Wikis with a strong viewpoint ? Also: Thank you for telling me about Metapedia. I am creating an article about it now: Metapedia. --DavidCary 11:40, 5 December 2008 (EST)

From WikiIndex's Metapedia article: Metapedia is an electronic encyclopedia about culture, art, science, philosophy and politics. No, that's far from the truth. --Michaeldsuarez 12:29, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Please give me a little hint as to how to make WikiIndex's article more accurate? Or better yet, please edit WikiIndex article directly to make them more accurate? Thank you. --DavidCary 11:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

What about foreigh language wikis

What do we do about articles where we can't monitor the content because it's in a foreign language? We need some kind of disclamer. Proxima Centauri 08:01, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Seems like a good idea. What should it say? "The content of this wiki has not been evaluated by a native speaker"? Would we want to attach a date to that statement? Or just let someone look at the article history to figure that out? --MarvelZuvembie 14:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

On a related note, should we attempt to wikilink the "language speakers" categories to the "wiki language" categories and vice versa? I'm sure people can figure it out on their own, but maybe it would help prompt non-English speakers to look at articles in the languages they speak. --MarvelZuvembie 14:51, 3 December 2008 (EST)

some wiki seem to be blocked

Dear active administrators,

I feel that WikiIndex should index every public wiki.

A few sections above, Gulik mentioned a (infamous?) wiki not yet indexed at WikiIndex, so I went to Community Portal, punched in the name of the wiki, and hit the "Create a new wiki page" button.

After filling in some details and hitting "save", I expected WikiIndex to save and publish my rough draft of information about that wiki.

Alas, instead I got this error message:

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: ht tp://www.metapedia.org

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: ht tp://en.metapedia.org

(I've added spaces to mangle the above URLs, since otherwise the spam filter blocks my attempt to talk about them).

Is this the best place to whine and complain about our local WikiIndex spam filter? AntiSpamMeasures seems to be about discussing AntiSpam measures on *other* wiki.

--DavidCary 11:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Well, it wasn't supposed to stop someone like yourself; it was meant to stop vandals, trolls, and spammers from insert Metpedia links everywhere. Unfortunately, the spam filter can't tell the difference between good and bad editors. --Michaeldsuarez 12:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Well you could add 'www.metapedia.org' to the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist which allows you to add links to that site on any page and if you are worried about people abusing it, which i doubt, then you could temporarily ad it to the white list, create the article then remove it :)..--Comets 05:34, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Do we need this

Do we need this? Proxima Centauri 13:05, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

Don't think so. Kill it with fire. ;) --Koveras 12:21, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

It's dead. Proxima Centauri 13:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Controverial wikis

Do we want so much Porn? Proxima Centauri 10:32, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, WikiIndex is an index for all wikis, including those about porn. As long as the descriptions do not actually contain adult content, such entries are fine, in my opinion. Though this one's logo is really stretching it. --Koveras 12:21, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

I've deleted the logo. Proxima Centauri 13:40, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

The logo was uploaded a second time and I deleted it again. Proxima Centauri 13:34, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I didn't realise it was deleted because of a TOS violation. Please keep in mind that this logo is absolutely not explicit, actually you don't even see a nipple in this picture. In Germany we have probably one of the highest standards when it comes to the protection of minors, and Pornopedia is meeting all required criterias by not providing any offensive image material. Please keep in mind that the mother of all wikis, Wikipedia, has way more actual porn than we have, like: this or that one. And no offense, but maybe it would be interesting to hear another opinion of a second admin, maybe one who doesn't prefer vandalism to Pornopedia. Cheers, --Till Kraemer 05:03, 24 May 2009 (EDT)