Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page/Discussion"

From DIYWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Buy rolex replica online?)
m (Reverted edits by AcbozElbob (Talk); changed back to last version by John Rumm)
 
(346 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
So... as a Wikivirgin, how does this thing work then?
+
This page is for discussion of the DIY Wiki main page, and the Wiki as a whole.
  
That's the thing about wikis - they start off as a blank canvas, and you need to add both content and navigation structure.
+
It also seems to be a favoured place for spammers advertising dodgy pharmaceuticals, <strike>fake</strike>replica Rolexes and so on <sigh>
  
As reasonable first step might be to create a set of top level categories, and a set of links to articles under each category.
+
''Previous discussions on this page have been [[DIYWiki:Archiving pages|Archived]]''
<blockquote> If articles are assigned categories (with <nowiki>[[Category:Foobar]]</nowiki>) the category pages should automatically list articles assigned to them. --[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 13:13, 16 December 2006 (GMT)</blockquote>
+
* [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 20070630|30th June 2007]]
A good place for this is the main page. You then start creating those pages.
+
* [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 20070815|15th August 2007]]
 +
* [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 20080229|29th February 2008]]
 +
----
 +
== Time to protect pages from spam? ==
  
I'm happy to do that part, if it will make things easier.
+
Following up from discussion of spam in [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_20080229]] and looking at the current level of spamming I think it's time we protected all the wiki so that only registered users can edit pages.
<blockquote> Yes please --[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 13:13, 16 December 2006 (GMT)</blockquote>
 
  
== Structure ==
+
Earlier I had hoped/suggested that keeping the wiki open would encourage casual visitors to start contributing with little edits such as typos, clarifications etc, and maybe move on to becoming more heavyweight contributors. However this doesn't seem to be happening anyway, and the quantity of spam is getting unmanageable.
  
I think we already have a basic structure in the existing FAQ. We might beneficially look at importing that into wiki format before worrying too much about creating new content
+
The quality of the wiki would probably be improved more by having less spam and less work for regulars to do patrolling it, than any notional contribution from unregistered users. Also when/if unregistered users do contribute there's a danger their input may be mistaken for spam and their IP get blocked.
  
Ok, that sounds like a sensible move. I will try to spend some time creating an index this weekend.
+
A wiki-wide change is probably a Grunff-config thing. If others (NT, JR) agree I'll ask him to do it.
  
== Using the + tab to add to a discussion ==
+
--[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 20:37, 29 February 2008 (GMT)
  
(Only in these 'discussion' aka 'talk' pages.)
+
OK by me --[[User:John Rumm|John Rumm]] 23:01, 29 February 2008 (GMT)
  
You are prompted for the name of a new section and your contribution is appended to the page.
+
==Mass block==
 +
Is there any way to block IPs en masse? Any way at all would be a big help here.
 +
[[User:NT|NT]] 10:36, 9 April 2008 (BST)
  
'Show Preview' only shows your addition, not the context in which it will appear.
+
Alas not that I am aware of.  
  
--[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 11:51, 16 December 2006 (GMT)
+
We could also do with a global config file change to disable anonymous edits altogether. The policy of setting protection on individual articles to limit edits to registered users only, seems to have worked reasonably well[1] - but it is a bit slow to work through them all. Also it does not stop them creating new articles.
  
== Talk ('discussion' tab) pages -- signatures ==
+
I am tempted to protect the talk main page and see what happens. It will probably cause them to look for new articles to spam - but we can revert and protect any they find as it happens, so the workload may not be too much. It would certainly cut down the noise and leave them an ever decreasing pool of articles to fiddle with.
  
Appending your signature when you add a comment, particularly when replying to something already written, makes it easier to identify who's saying what, a la web forums. --[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 11:59, 16 December 2006 (GMT)
+
[1] I have only seen one edit to a protected file - and that was from a user that we had pre-emptively banned anyway. I am not sure how that happened - but it may have been because the user had tried it once before and got a limited duration ban which expired after my permanent ban was set. Perhaps the expiration of the temporary one overrode the permanent one?
  
Here's a reply to the above --[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 12:11, 16 December 2006 (GMT)
+
--[[User:John Rumm|John Rumm]] 13:24, 9 April 2008 (BST)
  
<blockquote>It would be nice if the wiki kept track of threads and increased the indent for each reply but it doesn't seem to do that (although some users on wikipedia make it seem to do so using <nowiki><blockquote>tags around their text</blockquote></nowiki>). --[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 12:02, 16 December 2006 (GMT)
+
<!-- ATTENTION! real contributors - add your contribution before this anti-spam device ...
<blockquote>
 
This quickly gets messy if you try to hand-craft multiple layers of indentation as you have to put your own <nowiki><blockquote>tags</blockquote></nowiki> before the closing <nowiki></blockquote></nowiki> you're replying to.
 
 
 
Kids: don't try this at home!
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
== Trouble with category pages ==
 
 
 
I added a <nowiki>[[Category:Plumbing]]</nowiki> tag to the Plumbing page but when I followed the Category: link at the bottom
 
of the page I got:
 
 
 
<pre>
 
Editing Category:Plumbing
 
From DIYWiki
 
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
 
You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist yet. To create the
 
page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If
 
you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button. Preview
 
 
 
Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data.
 
Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging
 
back in.
 
</pre>
 
 
 
If I just 'Save page' with an empty page and again try to follow the
 
link I get the same error. However if I create a page with some random
 
text and save that I get correctly directed to the newly created Category
 
page. I can then edit it and delete the random text, save again and I
 
still get to the new page (which is what I want). Odd.
 
 
 
== Logo ==
 
 
 
Can we have a $wgLogo please, pretty please?
 
 
 
Maybe one could be made using cooltext.com 
 
 
 
--[[User:Owain-test|Owain-test]] 23:09, 20 December 2006 (GMT)--Owain
 
 
 
Something like
 
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Image:UkdiyWIKIlogo.jpg
 
 
 
--
 
 
 
 
 
There are 2 problems with that logo:
 
 
 
1. It's too wide. When I resized it to 135px wide, it became too small to use. The logo ideally needs to be approximately squarish, around 135px wide.
 
 
 
2. In order for it to look right against the background, it needs to be transparent. I can make the image background transparent, but the effect is far cleaner if the logo itself has fairly well defined lines, rather than a fade.
 
 
 
Happy to put a logo up if you make one that's about the right shape.
 
 
 
--[[User:Grunff|Grunff]] 10:23, 24 December 2006 (GMT)
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
 
The input form on cooltext doesn't seem to allow a line break, or to pick transparent bg. Sorry.
 
--[[User:217.158.132.41|217.158.132.41]] 21:22, 24 December 2006 (GMT)
 
 
 
 
 
Would it work ok if you put the text in 2 lines to make it squarer, and fade to a white background?
 
 
 
--
 
 
 
It doesn't do line breaks.
 
 
 
Would it work if it was rotated 90deg to have the text running vertical, it would push the left menu down a bit?
 
-- Owain
 
 
 
 
 
Could you make 2 pics and splice them together?
 
 
 
 
 
I'm quite happy to get our graphic designer to create a nice logo for the wiki, but since this will be quite costly, I'd rather wait until we are sure we're going to keep the wiki.
 
 
 
I'm not keen on splicing etc - it never looks good.
 
 
 
--[[User:Grunff|Grunff]] 12:12, 26 December 2006 (GMT)
 
 
 
 
 
2nd attempt is at [Image:Wikilogo1.gif] I'll leave it to you to resize and make transparent; hopefully the edges aren't dithered and the incompetence in editing will disappear when it's shrunk.
 
 
 
--[[User:Owain-test|Owain-test]] 16:56, 26 December 2006 (GMT)
 
 
 
 
 
Hi Owain, sorry, I had a look at that one, but it's too pixelated. Leave the logo issue with me, I promise I'll get something sorted out for it if the wiki is still attracting interest in say 3 months - does that sound ok?
 
 
 
--[[User:Grunff|Grunff]] 20:58, 30 December 2006 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Categories ==
 
 
 
I find that what turn out to be the useful category headings are often not what I epxected them to be ahead of time. (I manage a few info libraries elsewhere.)
 
 
 
== Deleting images ==
 
 
 
I uploaded a bunch of image files for an article then realised I didn't need some of them, but there doesn't seem to be any way to delete them.
 
 
 
They're shown in [[Special:Unusedimages]]
 
 
 
--[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 18:21, 3 January 2007 (GMT)
 
 
 
There are a few redundant articles could be deleted too. Whatever the method, it may be best to delete the how to after its been done!
 
[[User:NT|NT]] 19:14, 3 January 2007 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Revert ==
 
 
 
How do you do a 'revert' then? Could be handy to know.
 
[[User:NT|NT]] 06:07, 4 February 2007 (GMT)
 
 
 
 
 
Go to '''history''' and find the version you want to go back to, go into '''edit''' and save it without making any changes to the text (but do fill in the '''Summary''' to say you're reverting it, and why, of course!)
 
 
 
--[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 12:15, 4 February 2007 (GMT)
 
 
 
Ohh - easy! Thanks.
 
[[User:NT|NT]] 22:08, 4 February 2007 (GMT)
 
 
 
== DIY pages on wikipedia ==
 
 
 
There are some middling to bloody-awful DIY related pages on wikipedia which need some work:
 
 
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_it_yourself Do_it_yourself] could do with UK-ifying and putting in some decent links (like to here!)
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIY_culture DIY_culture]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handyperson Handyperson] <groan>
 
 
 
== Naming & Capitalisation conventions ==
 
 
 
Some time ago I put in the Naming section:
 
<blockquote>
 
When referring to one article from another it helps to have a consistent naming convention. Perhaps we should follow  Wikipedia's naming convention [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions]] especially regarding capitalisation of article names and whether they should be in the singular or plural [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#General_conventions]]
 
</blockquote>
 
However no-one (least of all me :-)) seems to be doing that so maybe we should change this to reflect actual practice which seems to be to Capitalise All  Initials and use plurals for subjects which are a class of things e.g. '''Round Tuits'''
 
 
 
I agree, for one reason or another it hasnt been followed, and its less confusing to stick with what we've got, so thats what I do for now.
 
[[User:NT|NT]] 05:27, 15 February 2007 (GMT)
 
 
 
OK I've changed it to reflect more-or-less what we've got now, although what we've got isn't consistent as to whether we capitalise all words in an article name or just the main ones, but wtf, life's too short :-)
 
 
 
--[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 11:25, 15 February 2007 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Buy rolex replica online? ==
 
 
 
Discount  phentermine online
 
http://ksiegi.emix.net.pl/wyswietl.php?user=accut accutane side effects
 
http://ksiegi.emix.net.pl/wyswietl.php?user=25144zz buy viagra
 
http://gio.siamforum.com cheap viagra
 
http://www.spbgu.ru/blog22755 aciphex prevacid
 
http://g.siamforum.com/ replica watch
 
http://www.greatestcities.com/~rolexreplica rolex replica
 
http://blog.iespana.es/pharmacy1 buy cheap phentermine
 
http://blog.iespana.es/pharmacy viagra
 
http://www.blog.fory.pl/replicawatch/ watch replica
 
http://watchreplicarolex.iespana.es replica watch
 
http://www.blog.fory.pl/hypnosis/ Weight loss hypnosis
 
http://rolexreplicabuy.blog.dada.net/ rolex replica
 
http://www.blog.fory.pl/rolex/ replica rolex
 
http://weightlosshypnosis.blog.dada.net/ Weight loss hypnosis
 
http://www.wh-gb.de/system.php?benutzer=warseo rolex replica
 

Latest revision as of 03:14, 3 January 2009

This page is for discussion of the DIY Wiki main page, and the Wiki as a whole.

It also seems to be a favoured place for spammers advertising dodgy pharmaceuticals, fakereplica Rolexes and so on <sigh>

Previous discussions on this page have been Archived


Time to protect pages from spam?

Following up from discussion of spam in Talk:Main_Page/Archive_20080229 and looking at the current level of spamming I think it's time we protected all the wiki so that only registered users can edit pages.

Earlier I had hoped/suggested that keeping the wiki open would encourage casual visitors to start contributing with little edits such as typos, clarifications etc, and maybe move on to becoming more heavyweight contributors. However this doesn't seem to be happening anyway, and the quantity of spam is getting unmanageable.

The quality of the wiki would probably be improved more by having less spam and less work for regulars to do patrolling it, than any notional contribution from unregistered users. Also when/if unregistered users do contribute there's a danger their input may be mistaken for spam and their IP get blocked.

A wiki-wide change is probably a Grunff-config thing. If others (NT, JR) agree I'll ask him to do it.

--John Stumbles 20:37, 29 February 2008 (GMT)

OK by me --John Rumm 23:01, 29 February 2008 (GMT)

Mass block

Is there any way to block IPs en masse? Any way at all would be a big help here. NT 10:36, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Alas not that I am aware of.

We could also do with a global config file change to disable anonymous edits altogether. The policy of setting protection on individual articles to limit edits to registered users only, seems to have worked reasonably well[1] - but it is a bit slow to work through them all. Also it does not stop them creating new articles.

I am tempted to protect the talk main page and see what happens. It will probably cause them to look for new articles to spam - but we can revert and protect any they find as it happens, so the workload may not be too much. It would certainly cut down the noise and leave them an ever decreasing pool of articles to fiddle with.

[1] I have only seen one edit to a protected file - and that was from a user that we had pre-emptively banned anyway. I am not sure how that happened - but it may have been because the user had tried it once before and got a limited duration ban which expired after my permanent ban was set. Perhaps the expiration of the temporary one overrode the permanent one?

--John Rumm 13:24, 9 April 2008 (BST)