User talk:MarkDilley/Archive4: Difference between revisions

== Vandal ==

 

 

 

== Problem user ==

 

== Lost Password and no Email Addy Registered ==

== A new sysop? ==

 

Hi Mark,

what would you think about [[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] as Sysop? At present, he's the [http://www.wikiindex.org/Special:Contributions/MarvelZuvembie most active user] and seems to be interested in sysop-stuff. Best --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 03:09, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

== Conservaèdia ==

 

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.

* 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, RationalWiki etc ==

#’’’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.

#’’’ 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, [http://www.wikiindex.org/Category:Wikis_with_a_strong_viewpoint Wikis with a strong viewpoint].  To be neutral I’ve included many secular wikis as well as religious wikis in this category. [[User:Proxima Centauri|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.  

== 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]] ?

--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 13:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)

 

== sushi ==

 

: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. :-) --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 18:32, 11 December 2008 (EST)

 

 

== 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 --[[User:Spud Gun | <b><FONT COLOR="#8B3A3A">Carl McBride</FONT></b>]] ([[User_talk:Spud_Gun |talk]]) 05:49, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:Well, when using {{template|Inactive}}, 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. [[User:Patheticcockroach|Patheticcockroach]] 03:11, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

::Ah, right, categories remain the same when using {{template|wiki}} with wiki_status = Inactive ([[Whistleblowers Canada|example]]). [[User:Patheticcockroach|Patheticcockroach]] 03:23, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

 

 

== here... more... ==

 

[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Welcome&diff=64291&oldid=63858 Great!] I fight against these meaningless link captions too. If only one could search for them! ;-) Greetings --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 05:55, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

 

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:

== 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. [[User:David Shepheard|David Shepheard]] 12:30, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

 

 

 

 

--[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 19:27, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

 

:::After reading the [[Wikia]] article, I was wondering if this wiki was here to list wikis or review them. See [[:Category_talk:Wikia#Criticism|my comments in the Criticism section of the Wikia talk page]]. --[[User:David Shepheard|David Shepheard]] 12:38, 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. [[User:David Shepheard|David Shepheard]] 06:42, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

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

 

::It's certainly possible to add extra fields to the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>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. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|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]]. [[User:David Shepheard|David Shepheard]] 07:17, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

 

== Block again ==

I've blocked a user for [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk:RationalWiki&curid=14774&diff=67602&oldid=67601&rcid=72457 this edit].  [[User:Huw Powell]] and various unregistered users have been setting out to cause me problems for weeks. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 14:03, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

 

==Admin abuse by Proxima Centauri==

: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 [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Proxima+Centauri&page= 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). [[User:Huw Powell|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. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:46, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

== Spam ==

 

== My attempt at dispute resolution ==

Hey All, wanted to see if you were interested in dispute resolution, my suggestion is [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThis_is_not_the_solution&diff=69572&oldid=69536 here] ~~ [[MarkDilley]]

 

== 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 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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 01:30, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

== 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? [[User:Lumenos|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 ==

 

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

:Replace the extension with the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WhosOnline new version]. The one you are using contains an SQL injection vulnerability. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 06:57, 4 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 [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=70593&oldid=70592 delete the vast majority of an article], multiple times. [[User:Lumenos|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. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 06:02, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

:::[[User_talk:Nx#RationalWiki_moved_to_talk_page.|I feel bad for Nx]], however. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:54, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

== Deletions and Protections ==

 

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. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] 07:24, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

:::(Mark's response copied from my (Bob M's) talk page) Hello - here is a bit of an explanation about [http://www.wikiindex.org/User_talk:This_is_not_the_solution#Thanks_to_everyone_for_the_cooling_off_-_here_is_my_idea_on_how_to_move_through_this. current decisions]. Best, [[MarkDilley]]

::::::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.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 10:19, 7 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? [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] 04:21, 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 [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#How_sympathetic_or_critical.3F_.28Who_decides.3F.29|entire pages devoted to criticism]]. I could be wrong. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:55, 8 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 [[Talk:RationalWiki#.22Archive1.22|"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)? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:49, 12 September 2009 (EDT)