Difference between revisions of "User talk:MarkDilley"

From WikiIndex
Jump to: navigation, search
(creating archive 2)
(archive 3)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<table align="right"><tr><th>Archives:</th><td>[[User talk:MarkDilley/Archive1|1]],</td><td>[[User talk:MarkDilley/Archive2|2]]</td></tr></table>
+
<table align="right"><tr><th>Archives:</th><td>[[User talk:MarkDilley/Archive1|1]],</td><td>[[User talk:MarkDilley/Archive2|2]],</td><td>[[User talk:MarkDilley/Archive3|3]]</td></tr></table>
 
{{Clear}}
 
{{Clear}}
 
<hr/>
 
<hr/>
 
{{TOCright}}
 
{{TOCright}}
 
[[category:people who get many messages]]
 
[[category:people who get many messages]]
−
 
−
== real names ==
 
−
 
−
[[MediaWiki:Prefs-help-realname]] (this notice appears on my preferences page) [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 15:21, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
[[MediaWiki:Prefs-help-userdata]] (or maybe I'm confusing with this one) [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 15:22, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
check out this page: http://www.wikiindex.com/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup
 
−
 
−
there are actually 3 fields in mediawiki for names - one is Username and we've renamed that Name.  one is Real name and is optional.  I'm not sure what it's used for.  both of these two are on the page I linked above.  The third is nickname and can be seen here: http://www.wikiindex.com/Special:Preferences
 
−
 
−
argh! [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 14:48, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Did you chop more than you meant to?==
 
−
http://www.wikiindex.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wiki_Index&curid=2854&diff=21393&oldid=21387
 
−
 
−
[[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 23:55, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
No, maybe not - I think I see them on [Wiki_Index]], so you were probably just belatedly removing them from a temp store while doing something else. Efficiency... [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 02:04, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Wikis for review==
 
−
Further up the page. Commenting here in case it's useful. One way to see what hasn't been looked at for a while is [[special:ancientpages]]. (Hmmmm - interesting to see what's the most ancient at this moment!) [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 02:04, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:''Yes, that is funny! [[MarkDilley]]''
 
−
 
−
==Phone calls==
 
−
I don't do much telephoning, especially if it's something that requires deliberation. And the only really comfortable time would be weekdays from about 5.30pm NZ time (0530 UTC April to October - ie 12.30am EST?, 0630 in "summer") until about an hour later. But '''I love email''': robinp"at"xtra.co.nz gets me almost instantly when I'm at work and within 24hr if my home PC is working. [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 02:04, 16 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
http://sacha.free.net.ph/notebook/wiki/WikiIndex.php
 
−
 
−
== re: Wikipedia  ==
 
−
 
−
Well, I did have a specific plan. :-)
 
−
 
−
No worries.  I'm not wedded to my plan.
 
−
 
−
Okay, here's my thinking:
 
−
 
−
Wikipedia is really important.  It's important in English because it's the biggest wiki and it gets the most press.  It's important in general because it's changing the way people conceive of the expert/peon split.  Given that, it's really important for us to have all Wikipedias represented here.  The redlinks shown on all wikipedia pages help others see that there's work to be done.  It's an invitation of sorts.  (As an aside, I believe this technique is useful for all wikis that have seperate language versions of the same thing. [[Uncyclopedia]] or something like that is another one I've already started.  WikiMedia has other examples.)  Anyway, another reason to do it is to emphasize the connections between these different wikipedias.  Other wikis aren't bound the way the wikipedias are.  They all have the same mission, just different languages, so tying them together tightly on our site is important.  I also really like the category:wikipedia, so even if we go with my template, I'd like to put the category in it.
 
−
 
−
Any change in your thoughts now that you know there's a reason?  peace, [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 08:44, 17 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== wiki engine/wiki farm ==
 
−
 
−
Yes, you're right.  I was mixed up.  And yet, doesn't a wiki farm page that shows up as a category still end up becoming a sub-category?  And isn't that one thing we were trying to avoid with wiki engines?  Seems like a parallel issue to me.  I dunno. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 14:12, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Yep, check it out: [[:Category:Multilingual]]
 
−
 
−
== add template and new wikis ==
 
−
 
−
Mark, I see you've added the structured data empty boilerplate to the add template.  I think this makes it more difficult to go through category first additional as well as the unknown categories.  Could we talk about this?  Thanks! [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 18:15, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:''Hey Ted, remove it if it causing you trouble.  I personally think, without seeing your references, that it is a better way to search for new wiki to add, then the category first additional, which as you remember, I tried to get rid of! :-) [[MarkDilley]]
 
−
 
−
I don't mind getting rid of first additional (even if I said otherwise before).  Can you say more about the benefits of having the structured date with the add template?  [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 21:55, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Well, before John did the add your wiki button on Community Portal, I don't think it mattered. But with people possibly entering their own wiki, the Add Structured Data box seems to be real helpful for them to figure out what to put where.  Just a gut feeling, nothing more, seems to make sense to me.  (also, since I was just adding that box anyways, when I added new wikis via this button) [[MarkDilley]]
 
−
: Oh also, seems more natural to look for wiki through the category add wiki, instead of through first/second additional.)
 
−
 
−
''Could we nuke first/second additional right now to simplify this conversation?  I'm not going to do it at the moment, but let's just assume it's done.''
 
−
: ''Okay, cool.  Alright.  Let's say I'm a new person and I come here and I see that my wiki isn't here.  I use John's add a wiki button, the default brings in the structured data, I fill out the form, and we're done, yes?  Cool, so far this has nothing to do with the add template, right?  Just trying to make sure we're still on the same page.  Okay, so with new person adding one wiki, no need to add template, the person does their own structured data.  Cool.  Now, scenario #2.  You, Ray or I find a new wiki or 10 and don't have time or inclination to actually fill in the structured data.  We just put the URL in and the add template and we're done.  Someone else looking through categories wikis to add sees these wikis need structured data and tehy add it.  Cool, right?  On the other hand, if the blank (unknowns) structured data is attached to the add template, you or ray or I adds a URL and project unknowns gets stuck with a bunch of new unknowns.  So what am I missing?  Help me see the benefits?  Thanks!  [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 02:20, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Ok, so I add a new wiki through Johns magic wizard.  We are ignoring that category first, and second, though they seem similar to me.  The template has the add template.  I find that useful for two reasons:  1) it has the [[StructuredData]] link on it, I think this may help people while they fill in their page. (much the way we thought category first/second would, and why I pushed for a tag in the form)  2) It adds the page to category wikis to add for folks who are working on those tasks.  I am unclear why it is a problem from the view point of category unknown and category first/second.  Similar to your questions: what am I missing?  Help me see the benefits/problems?
 
−
 
−
: PErhaps we need to wait until we can speak about this.  Text is just too slow and cumbersome.  I will try one more time, howeverr. :-)  I'm a glutton for punishment.  Here's how I saw things before this change:
 
−
*** category add a wiki had pages with just a url - they needed everything added, structured data, description, everything - wikis were only in this category as a time-saver b/c ray, mark and ted didn't always want to spend the time to put all the structured data in when they found a new wiki
 
−
****''I think of it more as a process, not only because we didn't want to spend the time on it.'' [[MarkDilley]]
 
−
***** Sorry, I shouldn't have tried to guess why we didn't fill in the structured data.  We each have our own reasons at the time we do it.  The reasons don't really matter.  What matters is that we do it, and that's not a problem at all, incremental improvements are great! [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 14:02, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
*** category unknown engine had pages in it where someone had already put in the structured data and the engine is still unknown - this is a 2nd step
 
−
*** category unknown edit mode similarly had pages in it where someone had already put in the stuctured data and the edit mode was still unknown for some reason - this is also a 2nd step
 
−
: I suppose what I'm getting at is that this used to be a 2 step process.  Step 1 was putting in the sturctureed data and step 2 was going back to fix any data that was still missing.  I get myself in a different frame of mind if I'm just looking for edit modes and don't have to worry about other structured data.  I work differently when I'm doing step 1 or step 2.  This change that we're discussing seems to have eliminated the 2 step process which makes it harder for me to work in the way I want to work.  Is this any clearer?  If not, happening tonight? [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 11:29, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
It seems that step 1 needs to be finished before I can grasp what you are saying about the work flow disruption.  If the ~47 wikis to add are added, then seeing how it affects step two?  I will try to do that today.  call tonight seems to be on track, breathing and everything. [[MarkDilley]]
 
−
 
−
: I'm not sure that step 1 will ever be finished for long.  We're always going to find new wikis.  I can definitely see that having the structured data (empty) and the add template together can be helpful for step 1.  I have no disagreement there.  Let's talk about it tonight to see if we can find a way to not make step 2 more difficult.  Until tonight! :-) [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 14:00, 22 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Ted, you are a rockstar! [[MarkDilley]]
 
−
 
−
== Wiki problems ==
 
−
 
−
http://undertheoak.net/drupal/taxonomy/term/1
 
−
 
−
== Wiki Tricks ==
 
−
 
−
Hah!!
 
−
 
−
Ted is ever vigilent with spelling, as well as we all are/try to be.  But there is something to leaving mistakes behind for newbies. For example,  I purposefully left the [http://www.wikiindex.com/index.php?title=WikiFeedback&curid=4512&diff=23308&oldid=23280&rcid=24663 spelling error] for someone to fix. Ted got it!  Maybe there is a use in leaving minor errors laying around?  Other wiki bootstrapping ideas?  I love wiki. :-)
 
−
 
−
:I agree that there is no harm in leaving the occasional minor error lying around for newbies to cut their teeth on. [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 21:56, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: I am also interested in ideas for how to bootstrap my wiki. But perhaps such discussion would be more on-topic at [[MeatballWiki]] or [[RecentChangesCamp]] or [[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science WikiScience]]. --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 22:49, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:''David you are right, [[RecentChangesCamp]] should have a conversation about those issues.  I think it is on topic here though. [[MarkDilley]]''
 
−
 
−
== dreamhost ==
 
−
 
−
You can earn an affiliate bonus if I sign up: http://dreamhost.com/rewards.html - let me know if you're going to do it - I might switch some stuff to them from godaddy 7.95/month for unlimited domains!  wow, awesome! [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 20:47, 24 May 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Time zones==
 
−
What's the [[UTC]] equivalent of "10:15pm EST"? [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 21:56, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
: ''I have no idea! :-) [[MarkDilley]]''
 
−
 
−
==Welcome, recent visitors==
 
−
See my real page. [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 22:12, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== softie! ==
 
−
 
−
yes, that's a good thing :-)  thanks! [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 22:47, 8 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Status: Building? ==
 
−
 
−
What the heck is that? [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 12:38, 11 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:''It is the folksonomy tag that [[Mike Hammond]] [http://www.wikiindex.com/index.php?title=OoBdoo&oldid=24190 gave the wiki].  I like it because the wiki isn't really active yet, it is in the process of being built.  Maybe there is a better word or words for it, but I really like the idea.''
 
−
 
−
I didn't know it was possible to have folksonomy in the structured data.  I learn so much from you!  Doesn't it need to now be listed as one of our status categoires? [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 13:39, 11 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:''I can't help to feel you are poking fun at me, surely in a good natured way!  It should be listed in the status category once folks settle with it, but I am not sure folks are settling with it, let's put it on the call tonight to have a chat.''
 
−
 
−
Not poking fun.  You saw my reaction to "Building".  I changed it to active.  You changed it back and I am seeing now that that's how things evolve with wiki.  We can't, even if we wanted to, control everything and decide in advance how things are going to work.  In some ways it's strange that we have structured data at all.  So far I think this is the first example of a structured data category being created by someone other than "us."  That's pretty cool if we let it happen.  Good stuff.  And sorry that it felt like I was poking fun.  Your radical inclusiveness is somehow not obvious to me, yet it's definitely where I want to go. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 12:38, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== hahaha ==
 
−
 
−
:-)
 
−
 
−
It's actually fine to revert while I'm in the middle of this b/c I can just get my version out of history to finish it.
 
−
 
−
THEN, you can revert for real :-)
 
−
 
−
[[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 10:41, 14 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
== dreams of wiki-indexing / microformats vs [[StructuredData]] ? ==
 
−
 
−
Bonjour Mark
 
−
 
−
Currently a long time I've not been here and not a lot of time to make any ''french-synchro-translation''. I'd be interested to have your opinion on the opportunity/way to bridge some Microformats-wiki with the [[StructuredData]] project ? Completely newbie on the subject, but the perspectives seem to be interesting. -- [[Christophe Ducamp]] | &lt;small&gt;[[User talk:ChristopheDucamp|talk]] 07:10, 15 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== delete template and discussion ==
 
−
 
−
Mark, thanks for the note.  I definitely agree with you that short conversations, especially about a potential delete, should be on the page itself, rather than the talk page.  My edit was just trying to get you what you were trying to get.  Glad I succeeded! :-) [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 13:11, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:''As usual Ted, you succeeded with elegance. Thank you! Mark''
 
−
 
−
== [[Talk:ThisWiki:Copyright]] ==
 
−
 
−
please weigh in - please confirm John's call on consensus or weigh in with whatever other work we still need to do - thanks! [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 16:52, 22 June 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Monday meeting ==
 
−
 
−
We'll see. I'll try to make at ;east a few of them. &mdash;[[Sean Fennel|<span style="font-family: Kristen ITC, Times New Roman;">User:Sean Fennel</span>]][[User talk:Sean Fennel|<span style="font-family: Kristen ITC, Times New Roman;">@</span>]] 19:20, 1 July 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== "click" text smaller ==
 
−
 
−
I'm not sure it can be done.  Do we really need the "click"?  [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 01:50, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
 
−
: ''I think that Ray added the first one, I was fine with it.''
 
−
I don't have anything invested in that word being there or not.  I just don't think there's any way to make it smaller, short of using html instead of the section headings (===).
 
−
 
−
Me neither, I was just hoping to make it smaller! ;-)
 
−
 
−
== Wiki Representatives ==
 
−
 
−
Hello, I noticed the convo on the welcome talk page, and would like to help (I'm also the person who suggested becoming a directory of websites, not just wikis :P), oh and the admin of [[PSConclave_Wiki]], and would like to be the representative, and possibly help you set up this representative system. [[User:Elliotgoodrich|Elliotgoodrich]] 15:38, 4 July 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Thanks ==
 
−
 
−
Hi, 
 
−
 
−
I forgot to put a description on my site ([[wikipaddle]]), thanks for doing it for me. I hope my site is ok to include on you wiki.
 
−
 
−
Thanks, George.
 
−
 
−
== subpages to the extreme example ==
 
−
 
−
Check this out: http://www.hsalum.com/wiki/Main_Page/Michigan/B/Beverly_Hills/Wylie_E._Groves_High_School/1993/Ernst%2C_Ted
 
−
 
−
== Hi!  [[KirkKitchen]] here ==
 
−
 
−
We use a wiki at work for software development. woo woo woo.  I'm in Grand Rapids 4 days a week working.
 
−
 
−
== sorry about that ==
 
−
 
−
didn't mean to jump in while you were still working - need to remember to check timestamps! hope all is well - I won't make it tonight - peace, ted
 
−
: I didn't mean timestamp by your name/comment; I meant in RC.
 
−
 
−
Ok, I see now,  no worries and sorry for my part in it. Best, Mark
 
−
 
−
== words ==
 
−
 
−
I have no intention of challenging your use of the word weblog instead of blog.  I am curious why it means so much to you.  You're the only one I know that uses the word weblog and at the same time, the choice of that word seems very important to you, to the point of changing when I write blog into weblog.  I will use the word weblog here (though I use it nowhere else).  No worries.  Just curious.  hugs, [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 00:42, 2 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
: I tried to comment on your meatball user page, but the spam filter wouldn't let me save.  Here's my message: ''I'm so impatient!  And I'm happy to see your message to Sunir.  So I'm working on patience. :-) -- TedErnst''
 
−
:: Sorry, I'm still impatient. :-( [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 13:44, 7 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Well here it goes, some thoughts on the weblog v blog controversy:  To me, I started out wanting to merge wiki and blog, I created WikiBlog over at [[Meatball Wiki]] - [[SunirShah]] mentioned to me that the word ''blog'' was a horrible word and we should not use it (this is from memory, folks).  I asked him why he thought that and he wrote down a convincing few lines.  I can't find the original words.  But it went a little something like this:  The word ''blog'' is an [http://www.primaryresources.co.uk/english/onomat.htm onomatopoeia], and it sounds gross. By googling for ''blog is an ugly word'' I found these examples to use.  [http://butuki.com/laughing_knees/ugly-word/ It sits heavy in the mouth, confuses everyone, and conjures up images of some wasting disease or putrid creature], and [http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/archives/2004/02/12/blog-is-an-ugly-word/ it’s just a misshapen lump of a word].  I am not a fan of [http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/037779.php Blog is an ugly word but we're stuck with it.], it is a wiki, we can decide ourselves! ;-)  - I wish to come to agreement to use weblog instead of ''blog'' - we would be being true to the [http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai/msg/3ef4b796ead09a87?q=weblog&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=31&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1997&rnum=5 orgin] of both.  It is said that weblog was pulled apart ''we blog'', some people don't like the word wiki, either. I hope this brings up good questions or other ideas.  Best, Mark
 
−
: Thanks, Mark.  I'll have to take a look at these links from another connection.  My work has every one of them blocked. :-(  [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 12:58, 8 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
:: Mark, these links have some interesting information in terms of choosing a word other than blog.  I'm still curious why it matters so much to you.  Yes, of course we can choose any words we like.  I'm not questioning that at all.  I'm just wondering about why it matters so much.  Thanks! [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 13:50, 8 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== blog vs. weblog ==
 
−
 
−
No problem at all! --[[Raymond King]] | <small>[[User talk:Ray King|talk]]</small> 12:46, 2 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== crossing my fingers ==
 
−
 
−
the mean spam filter doesn't get me!
 
−
 
−
[http://www.omidyar.net/group/dancelabs/news/4/ recent discussion]
 
−
 
−
[[User:Chinarut|Chinarut]] 01:56, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==promoting our wikia==
 
−
Mark - how do we get our various wikia as promoted on your home page as they hit critical mass?  Muppets, World, Psychology and others are pretty cool now!  [http://world.wikia.com/wiki/User:Gil Gil]
 
−
:Thanks mark - I guess I'm thinking of Wikia as 1500 seperate wikis, not one.  Because muppets, Dofus, and Psychology have little to do with each other, we would probably index each seperately.  I wanted to make sure that would be "okay".  [http://world.wikia.com/wiki/User:Gil Gil]
 
−
 
−
== GPMI Wiki is dead (for now) ==
 
−
 
−
Hi, Mark.  After over a year without much activity except for my use of it as whip of the SCC, I've taken down the GPMIWiki.  If there is demand for a new instance, I'll be happy to help, but there's not much point in having it just hanging out there waiting for spammers to abuse it when nobody is interested in using it for its intended purpose.
 
−
- David A Spitzley 8/10/06 10:06pm
 
−
 
−
== sub-categories ==
 
−
 
−
I thought we decided they were okay, after Ray's presentation about nesting categories? [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 10:56, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== add and need to clean this damned page up ==
 
−
 
−
http://www.brown.edu/Students/GSC/wiki/Main_Page
 
−
 
−
== RC patrol? ==
 
−
 
−
I didn't know Ray knew how to do it.  I've never seen anyone but me do it here. :-)  Glad to have you aboard! [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 01:01, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
I think Ray had to learn about it for [[AboutUs]]!!!  Masisve recent change churn. :-)
 
−
 
−
== questions in edit summary? ==
 
−
 
−
How do we answer?
 
−
 
−
''is it ok to keep the external link in the structured data box?'' what does this mean? [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 01:39, 17 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== idea for signifying that the community is taking care of its page. ==
 
−
 
−
We have a badge or something, that says, this site is managed or looked after for by the owner of the wiki being mentioned.  This is also applicable for [[AboutUs]].
 
−
 
−
Also, Ted  you are right, I was rushed and asked it in the notes, not a good idea generally.
 
−
 
−
The point was, do we want to enforece keeping likes to the front page and recent changes to the structured data?  Best, Mark
 
−
 
−
 
−
==Sitemap==
 
−
The php script has to be installed by someone with access to the server directory where the wiki resides, so wiki adminship probably isn't enough, I think you have to have ftp access to the server. [[User:Dryguy|Dryguy]] 18:44, 23 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Great meeting you! ==
 
−
 
−
Hi Mark, it was very nice meeting you at the [[WikiSym]] konference! I just wanted to let you know that, and thank you again for giving me a short interview, which turned out quite well, in terms of material for the film. You had some key points, and I was happy to see they came across, when I reviewed the material today :-) --[[User:Morten Blaabjerg|Morten Blaabjerg]] 19:49, 24 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:I'll be sure to keep you posted! :-) I will also keep a keen eye on what is going on in this space. I also checked out Ray's [[AboutUs]] site, which I find pretty interesting to say the least! Best wishes, --[[User:Morten Blaabjerg|Morten Blaabjerg]] 20:36, 24 August 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Open Project Development ==
 
−
 
−
(answer to the question on http://projects.wikia.com )
 
−
 
−
Thank you for asking this question. I mean that 'normal' (or common?) wikis are made to store information. This is not for this (or at least, not only for this): it wants to lead people to activity, or let them organize their activity. This wiki is wiki + activity. --Let's 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 
−
 
−
(my first language is italian, it's difficult for me to explain it...)
 
−
--[[User:Let's|Let&#39;s]] 17:21, 4 September 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:Now I got a better definition: "This wiki offers (or wants to offer) the possibility for people to '''do''' something in the ''world'', and to '''collaborate''' through the ''web''". I hope the grammar and so on is right. It would be great to collaborate! If you create an account I'll put the ''news'' template on your talk page, in order to let you see the current events of the wiki. Thank you again --[[User:Let's|Let&#39;s]] 15:39, 6 September 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== WikiMaas agenda ==
 
−
 
−
Hi Mark,
 
−
 
−
Did you return from Denmark well?
 
−
 
−
Do you still want me to write something about the WikiMaas agenda for WikiIndex? If yes, can you give a little indication on the length and such?
 
−
 
−
Greetings,
 
−
 
−
Sander (http://wikimaas.org/Sander)
 
−
<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>
 
−
 
−
== wikitravel issue ==
 
−
 
−
Mark, I've been having an interesting discussion with Gil of wikia about wikitravel and their competition.  [http://www.chicagocoop.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATedErnst&diff=1547&oldid=1541 Check out his latest answer.] [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 10:54, 14 September 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Moving pages ==
 
−
 
−
Thanks for the vote of confidence, by moving [[The Wiki Synergy Project]] to the main space. A technical point for future reference - using the "move" function (a tab at the top if you're using the normal skin) instead of cutting and pasting, has the advantage of transferring the article history, and updating people's watchlists as well.
 
−
 
−
Thanks --[[User:Singkong2005|Chris Watkins/Singkong2005]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Singkong2005|talk]]</sup></small> 22:37, 23 September 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:I just realized you're a sysop... perhaps I could ask you to undo the recent changes and then redo it as a "move"? (I don't have the rollback feature that would be needed, as I'm not a sysop.) That would be very helpful in terms of keeping track of who has contributed what to the page.
 
−
 
−
:Btw, could you perhaps add a sentence of explanation about [[Wikibooks:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas]], on the Wiki Synergy Project page? I'm not clear on how this relates to the project - or what other wiki(s) you think might have synergy with this. Thanks again. --[[User:Singkong2005|Chris Watkins/Singkong2005]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Singkong2005|talk]]</sup></small> 22:51, 23 September 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::Excellent - thanks on both points. --[[User:Singkong2005|Chris Watkins/Singkong2005]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Singkong2005|talk]]</sup></small> 06:54, 24 September 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== check out this user ==
 
−
 
−
[[User:JenniferForUnity]] - see her contributions - awesome energy around the category system [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 15:58, 17 October 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== [[Category talk:Blog]] ==
 
−
 
−
please see: [[Category talk:Blog]]
 
−
 
−
== Re: Hello ==
 
−
 
−
[http://unitysupporters.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:JenniferForUnity Mark wrote here]:
 
−
 
−
"Hi Jennifer, I am at WikiIndex and was wondering if you had seen this: [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RadicalInclusiveness]. Looks like you are doing some cool stuff here. Look forward..Best, [[MarkDilley]]"
 
−
 
−
:I think one of the most interesting parts of getting involved in net politics has to be how educational it is...  I've learned about wikis and communities and policy making and on and on. That's for the link. :-)  This feels like a ''big'' issue.  I'll have to spend some time digesting it I think.  (Fun!)
 
−
 
−
:- [[User:JenniferForUnity|JenniferForUnity]] 11:55, 21 October 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== visual wiki index ==
 
−
 
−
Hi Mark, please would you have a look on this:
 
−
[[Proposal:Visual WikiIndex]] --[[User:Peu|Peu]] 17:17, 24 October 2006 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== blog functionality in media wiki ==
 
−
 
−
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/My_blog
 
−
 
−
==PB Wiki Network==
 
−
http://pbwikinetwork.pbwiki.com/
 
−
 
−
== contact me ==
 
−
 
−
Mark, thanks for your note.  You can contact me wiki at dave jenkins dot com (really).  [[User:Davejenk1ns|Davejenk1ns]] 00:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==request==
 
−
Could you delete my userpage, [[User:Canderous]] and the page [[Canderous]]? Thanks [[User:Canderous|Canderous]] 05:16, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== What do you think about external wikiindex entry points? ==
 
−
 
−
Hi Mark,
 
−
 
−
please have a look on [[Proposal:WikiIndex Pages on indexed Wikis]] --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 07:03, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Sysop-tag ==
 
−
 
−
Hi Mark,
 
−
 
−
There's a new [[template:sysop]] that can be used to tag users, which are currently active sysops. I think this will be good, because only sysops have the right to bluck/unblock and if someone feels blocked he needs help. --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 06:43, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:Hi Mark again, if you use the sysop tag, your place the appropriate talk link into your page. Regards --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 03:36, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Reporting spammers ==
 
−
 
−
* [[Special:Contributions:170.211.210.3]]
 
−
* [[Special:Contributions/60.10.6.170]]
 
−
* [[Special:Contributions/12.145.215.94]]
 
−
* [[Special:Contributions/217.171.176.46]]
 
−
 
−
Seems to be one of those new kinds of spammers who vandalise (with gibberish) a few times, then link spam a few pages. Probably bears watching. [[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:48, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:I blocked them. Nathan, please add spam reports to our new [[SysopTalk]], so any admin can take care on it. regards --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 02:51, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Synergy ==
 
−
 
−
Hi Mark,
 
−
 
−
Lots of exciting stuff happening at Appropedia - including connecting with new people and groups. I know you like to see synergy happening, so would be happy to fwd/cc an an email. I have good internet for a few days too, so Skype is possible - I'm Chriswaterguy on that system, and to send an electronic letter, it's the same username with the appropedia and the organizational suffix. Would be good to bounce ideas around. --[[User:Singkong2005|Chris Watkins a.k.a. Chriswaterguy]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Singkong2005|talk]]</sup></small> 08:52, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== the timezone... ==
 
−
 
−
Hi Mark,
 
−
 
−
...template exists now and seem to work properly. Greetings --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 03:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== [[TransWiki]] ==
 
−
 
−
Thanks for your interest! Personally, I feel that public transit is a huge part of our society's structure (Even as I write this, a public transit bus has just drove by). Hundreds of cities use public transit systems, all of which have many links, and they all have separate websites. [[TransWiki]] allows us, as a society, to bring together all the information about public transit systems into one site, making it easy to access and to allow people how to use their systems more efficiently. :) - [[User:Enzo Aquarius|Enzo Aquarius]] 18:47, 10 December 2007 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Section in "your" list ==
 
−
 
−
Hi Mark,
 
−
I hope you did'nt make it by hand. The Numbering was for the total amount, but sections are no problem to me. Maybe I'll sort/reformat it from time to time. But I hope the list will be done sometimes. Best regards, [[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 17:30, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Hey==
 
−
Hey Mark, you might like to clear [[:Category:DeletePage|this out]] and yeah try updating to the latest version of [[mw:Download|MediaWiki]] (1.12.0.) which is more stable than the previous version..cheers...--[[User:Comets|Comets]] 13:37, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== politics.ie wiki ==
 
−
 
−
Since you contributed to Politics.ie article, wanted you to know of a question at [[Talk:Politics.ie Wiki]]. --[[User:EarthFurst|EarthFurst]] 17:41, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
 
−
==Wikia==
 
−
Hello, Markdilley. Can the KUW (A german Club about Wikis) make a german version of Wikiindex on Wikia? When yes, than please write on my talkpage on [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:BobaCartman Wikia]. Thank, you! Gruß, <span class="plainlinks">[http://de.wikia.com/wiki/Benutzer:BobaCartman <span style="color:#0000CD;"> BobaCartman </span>]</span> 10:58, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:''Hello, MarkDilley. (I want say now, I can't very goog english) I can't do that, because I have two Wikis. My friend JangoCartman want to do that. I planed the URL: http://de.wikiindex.wikia.com/ I thing (To 100%) it is possibility. Thank you, BobaCartman''
 
−
::Hello, MarkDilley. I'm sendet you this E-Mail. VaderCartman (He, JangoCartman, Klamsy0710 and I have a Club named Confederacy of Independent Wikis) [http://requests.wikia.com/wiki/De.Dewikiindex requestet this Wiki], but Wikia wan't make that. Why you can see on the request. Can we make maybe the URL: de.wikiindex.org ?
 
−
 
−
::Gruß, <span class="plainlinks">[http://de.wikia.com/wiki/Benutzer:BobaCartman <span style="color:#0000CD;"> BobaCartman </span>]</span> 01:16, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
  
 
==Cool, thanks!==
 
==Cool, thanks!==

Revision as of 09:17, 23 June 2010

Archives:1,2,3

Template:TOCright

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)
Retrieved from "https://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk:MarkDilley&oldid=77428"