Replacement filing cabinet.svg This is an archive of past discussions made on March 8, 2007‎‎. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

News[edit source]

I propose something: a new namespace, "News:". Because we have so many people writing articles and not giving much info, just saying that things are still going on, they could instead write an article on it, and we could have it as news. I asked Angela about it, and she said:

"Yes, I can add that as long as the community agree on the idea. The downside is that it makes articles harder to link to, since you need to type [[news:page name|page name]] instead of just [[page name]]. The pages also won't show up on the RSS feed for Special:Newpages and they won't add to your article count (12,446) [Note: That count differs based on who is viewing it]. If everyone here is happy to do this despite the problems, let me know and I'll add it. Angela talk 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)"

So, I think we should go ahead with it. Comments? Aido2002((talk)) 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to discuss this, the news namespace is an important thing. Any comments? Aido2002((talk)) 20:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see it as that useful. why not just a category of "Current events"? That seems much simpler and more organized, new namespaces shouldn't be created when the content is relativly the same, just, newer. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this way, we can easily separate news from real articles, and they can be written as news articles, not encyclopedia articles. Plus, we can have separate articles for things that shod be names of both real articles and news articles. For example, if lets say that XYZ is a nation, thus has an encyclopedia article for its name. Then, for whatever reason, a news article should be called XYZ. We have then, article XYZ, and News:XYZ. See what I mean? I feel like that was a bad example.
Well, to see an article that shoud be in the "news:" namespace, see A Report on Treason. Aido2002((talk)) 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think your example is an rp history article, and a great example at that. The thing about having that namespace is that stuff is only "news" while it's new, are you going to move things out of that area? What if there is "news" about NPO, should there be a new NPO article in the news namespace or should it be added to NPO itself? If it goes in the news namespace then it may never make it into the NPO article, which doesn't seem like the best situation. Get what I'm saying? -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think see what you mean. We could put a template on top of the page saying that it is an archived article, if that's what you are saying. Aido2002((talk)) 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
While that's useful, I think a better course of action would be to have a current event tag for regular articles that lets others know that it's in progress. Of course just a blank page isn't worth putting up but if there is something that can inform. Plus, it can go on regular pages, like if there is new stuff happening in NPO, someone could throw a current event tag on the article as it undergoes rapid editing, then when it is out of the news, we can remove the tag. That way archived news is right where it should be, in the history books, right on the page of the subject. This can work for new things, such as alliance treaties also, and would be easy enough. To be constructed pages should always be deleted and I think seperating good new content from the knowledge source that we already have isn't the best option, since it'll never get brought over, and the news will just dissapear. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 07:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, I don't know what to do with this. I think it would be better off with the News namespace. Aido2002((talk)) 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, yeah, it doesn't really belong anywhere. I think all articles mentioned in that article should have some mention of the event (which makes sense, if the event is newsworthy), but a I think a category:History section (which already exists) would be good. As long as things aren't just thrown into the News namespace to die then I suppose it would have it's uses.

new CSS still wacko[edit source]

I haven't been here in a while, but this new layout seems to have never been fixed. It still loads really slow for me, and the tabs on top of the page (article, discussion, edit, etc.) are really ugly. Has any serious consideration been given to reverting to the old skin? -- Alphacow 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, I think it isn't that bad. The skin could be better, but, as I have said, it is really difficult to edit the style template. I don't think the buttons are ugly. As for it loading slow, that is not a style problem, I think it is a combination of the server speed and how fast your PC goes. It loads at differnet speeds for different times of day for me. Aido2002((talk)) 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam filter[edit source]

Go here and try to save the version of the article, it won't be allowed due to a spam filter problem, so I restored the text (without that secition of "spam" as it calls it). If someone can figure out what's causing that, it'd be great. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 02:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was an odd bug cause by a faulty regex. The phrase we were trying to block was [NOTE: The spam filter will not allow these words to go through on this archive page either. The first word is the opposite of open, in the past tense, the next is LUE with a 'd' in place of the 'L', then the word "to", and then a + i + d + s.] which a vandal keeps writing all over MemoryAlpha:, but it was causing all pages with "closed" and "aid" in to be blocked. I've removed it now, so you can change the page back to how it was if you prefer. Angela talk 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice[edit source]

I am letting everyone know this in advance so I am not accused of "being a tyrant."
I was looking through the recent edits, when I saw that User:Key Stroke had put an example on Libertarianism that clearly promoted an agenda. Take a look. As you may know, the vandalism policy defines vandalism as an edit "which does not help the page." Therefore, I blocked him for 24 hours as the policy mandates. If you think that I actually am being "a tyrant" in doing this, then, by all means, unblock him, all I can say is that I always try to make unbiased decisions. Aido2002((talk)) 00:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the Libertarian entry until after I noticed the block and I did think that you were just banning him. Anyway, we need an official policy on Wiki issues brought into CN wars. J Andres 15:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The Libertarianism page was created and I had thought that it fell in the same category as Bible as a page that wasn't at all related to CN, Bible was improved after a discussion on the talk page, and I suggested libertarian should have gotten a delete tag (as it wasn't related to CN) but didn't bother because the discussion was started already and was going through. I think a block was hasty, and I think with someone who is clearly not a "vandal" should have just received a warning. After all, even wikipedia gives a couple warning messages before it bans people, and they get actual, very frequent, vandals. But it's over now. I do think his edit was done in an effort to prove a point and I don't think that's a good way to solve problems (for everyone, of course us three included). We should just say our points, and discuss them instead of using the editing of a wiki to try to prove our point. Although this isn't wikipedia, they do have a guideline about it, at WP:Point which is worth reading a little if only to think about. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of the time that we ban someone, it is obviously intentional vandalism and it is only punishable by 24 hours the first time. They may not even log on to the computer in 24 hours. Take the ban I made today for a Nordreich vandal. It was teh person's first and only edit, but it was clear vandalism. Our current system isn't subjective at all and this is good. It is clear and precise. J Andres 02:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm... that's true. Fair enough. 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying I don't think it seems a bit hasty, but I was just doing what the policy says to. This seems like a good time to discuss how to re-write the policy. Any suggestions? Aido2002((talk)) 06:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving this Wiki[edit source]

Due to the manipulative, draconian, and childish approach of the new admins I have chosen to leave this Wiki and not return. Key Stroke 06:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, goodbye. Aido2002((talk)) 19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think we are childish. I wish you had responded to my comments on the ownership page so that we could have fully understood each others opinions. Every edit I've made was in order to help the wiki be as good as it could be. The two questionable stances I've had turned out good (Talk:Bible) and fair enough (Random Insanity Alliance, see discussion on my talk page about it). We were able to come to reasonable, rational agreements that seemed to work out. Noone had to leave or anything like that. Since those two pages were your biggest examples of administration wrongdoings (besides the realistically petty dispute about the moving of the ownership page) I really don't see how it was necessary for you to leave. But that was your decision. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Discouraging editing[edit source]

From J Andres's post on Vain's talk page

Please don't make edits to articles that are tagged as "Frequently the target of bias" without discussing it on the talk page first.

I have to completely disagree with this statement. We have recently been arguing that every page is opened to be edited, now we are saying that articles that are biased shouldn't be edited without "asking" first? Quite unwiki-like. I understand the concern. But I personally believe (and have witnessed on countless occasions) that the best outcome of an article comes from people being bold, and making a change that they think would benefit the article. Of course, in order for this to actually work, we all have to assume good faith in the edits of others. If you have a question about someones edit, feel free to revert it, or change it. The nice thing to do would be to explain your revert on the talk page, and when that happens, the greatest possible outcome occurs. Of course, the edit summary should point to the talk page. That way discussion can decide if that works or not. Of course, if this action isn't taken, the original poster, also acting in good faith, can revert the revert and then he can explain his actions on the talk page. Requiring discussion before edits is exactly what we were suggesting shouldn't happen in the Random Insanity Alliance thing. But this is even worse. Earlier we were saying that everyone should be able to fix an article if it has nonsense in it, and now you are suggesting that potentially (and most likely) useful edits must be discussed first?

The edits you left, J Andres, on Vain's talk page are a great way of working this out. But I don't believe the rollback tool should be used for anything other then clear vandalism. Your revert of his edit should have provided explanation for the revert in the edit summary, and if necessary, point to the talk page where you elaborate. I'd like everyone to look at the next section too, and I hope to keep the discussions separate. This discussion is dealing with the issue that people should never be told they are required to ask first before editing an unlocked article, the next is about blocking. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 07:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty much the problem we had with former user Key Stroke's ideas, we all agreed that this was against the "golden wiki rule" as I love to call it. Aido2002((talk)) 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Although articles tagged with this way say the same thing on the real wikipedia. J Andres 03:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean this, or this, which doesn't request that before changes. This does, but I sincerly doubt we have anything worthy of the name "highly controversial". Even then, it says "Please" before the request to talk about it first. Your reactions didn't seem that way. I'm just trying to make sure that if we are going to be pushing the wiki-nature, we have to make sure that going against it by discussing as the first action isn't a rule, but is just often useful. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
When I originally made the biased template I followed the controversial wiki template because I did it for the October Massacre, which at the time, was extremely controversial. I get what you are saying now though. J Andres 11:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyber Nations Wiki:Vandalism[edit source]

See Cyber Nations Wiki talk:Vandalism for discussion on the vandalism policy. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 07:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nordreich[edit source]

Check out the Nordreich talk page. The IP address user (Likely Vain) won't budge on the link to the video being displayed. J Andres 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Resource images to upload[edit source]

Feel free to upload any of these that don't already exist, and tag them with [[category:resources]]. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-Bonus Resources Aluminum.GIF Cattle.GIF Coal.GIF Fish.GIF Furs.GIF Gems.GIF Gold.GIF Iron.GIF Lead.GIF Lumber.GIF Marble.GIF Oil.GIF Pigs.GIF Rubber.GIF Silver.GIF Spices.GIF Sugar.GIF Uranium.GIF Water.GIF Wheat.GIF Wine.GIF

Bonus Resources Affluent.GIF Asphalt.GIF Automobile.GIF Beer.GIF Construction.GIF Fastfood.GIF Jewelry.GIF Microchips.GIF Radiation.GIF Steel.GIF

I uploaded some more, we now have all the non-bonus resources. Aido2002((talk)) 22:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think I finished it up. MTTezla 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... some of my images are kind of weird... I'm not sure why that is, but it's not really noticable, I don't think. Oh well. (The images in question are fast food, beer, fine jewelry, and affluent population.) MTTezla 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, MTTezla. Well, if you can get better versions please upload those, but these will work for now. Aido2002((talk)) 07:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll see what I can do with them. Stupid Paint. MTTezla 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thumbnail Image Background[edit source]

I fixed the problem we were having (Yes, the one I caused...) with the colors of he thumbnail image backgrounds. I pasted the text of the Monobook.css file into MS word and used the search and replace to replace it with the color white. Aido2002((talk)) 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

About time, well done :). -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Very happy that this is finally done. J Andres 13:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know why it occurred to me just now to use a search and replace, but better late than never, I suppose. Aido2002((talk)) 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

News Headlines and Did You Know[edit source]

We need to establish some committee, or at least a set of guidelines, to determine what will be out on the News css and the Did you Know css. People are just putting unhelpful crap there, we should put helpful, informative tidbits there.

Here is my proposal for how the Did You Know css should be decided:

1) We make a page, where people post their suggestions.

2) We vote, and decide to put it up or not. Simple as that.

However, the News css, given the fact that it has to be updated as news happens, needs to give out some authority:

1) (As much as I hate to say it, I can't think of a better way than this--) Admins and bearucrats have to decide what should be out up. It is up to them.

I know I will be criticized on that second idea, but I don;t know how it can be done better. We need to update that as news happens, and keep in mind I have asked Angela to install that news namespace (she told me a bug or something of the sort is preventing it from being made) and once that is up, it will be much easier, we can just pick from the newest articles.

--Aido2002((talk)) 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact is, our only active "proposal" system (great texts) which is open to discussion from anyone has been only us three, so lets leave news as the same, and see what happens. People propose news stories and if other support, it goes up. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 08:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
But we can't wait to vote on news. News happens wen it happens, and thats when we have to post it here. Thats why I think we should just pick a few, trustworthy people to post news. Aido2002((talk)) 10:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think allowing open posting would be best, as a few people can't know about all news. We can have open posting of news, and then remove things that aren't "news worthy" by our discretion, this is just front page right? -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all, happy new year, everyone. I think the problem here is mostly the Did you Know css, we have tried just letting anyone post that, and we are getting crap there. So, I looked at how Wikipedia does it and found that they allow for posting of suggestions, and then pick from those. That's how I think we should do it, we will get much better facts this way. Aido2002((talk)) 09:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good actually, I like it. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Talk page is ready for suggestions: Template talk:Did you know Aido2002((talk)) 01:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, why has the news infobox been removed from the wiki main page? - Alphacow 20:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts[edit source]

I know this would lead to a lot of switching, so let me just out this idea out there. I have been thinking about it for a while, and just want to say it:

I think we need a better name. "Cyber Nations Wiki" just isn't as good... We need something one-worded, like, and this is just an example, Cybnawiki. Yes, its stupid, but It's just an example to show what I mean. If anyone else agrees with me, we could have a naming contest.

Once again, I'm just putting the idea out there. Aido2002((talk)) 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, the name is long, but it's clear, and obvious. There is one Cyber Nations Wiki, and it is this, as the name states. What spurred this on? A desire to get a logo with the whole name? (lol) -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
IF a better name is found (Star Wars Wiki = Wookieepedia) than I might support this, but right now I like the name. J Andres 11:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, the idea just came to me, and I just wanted to put it out there. I'll see if I can come up with a good name, but I agree, the current one is good for now. Aido2002((talk))
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.