Cyber Nations Wiki
(Thumbnail Image Background)
Line 75: Line 75:
   
 
I see what you mean, MTTezla. Well, if you can get better versions please upload those, but these will work for now. '''[[User:Aido2002|Aido2002]]'''[[User talk:Aido2002|((talk))]] 07:14, 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. '''[[User:Aido2002|Aido2002]]'''[[User talk:Aido2002|((talk))]] 07:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Thumbnail Image Background ==
  +
  +
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. '''[[User:Aido2002|Aido2002]]'''[[User talk:Aido2002|((talk))]] 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:36, 29 December 2006

Shortcut:
CN:PUMP

Archives:

  • Archives, Page One
  • Archives, Page Two


Discouraging editing

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

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

Nordreich

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

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 Cattle Coal Fish Furs Gems Gold Iron Lead Lumber Marble Oil Pigs Rubber Silver Spices Sugar Uranium Water Wheat Wine

Bonus Resources File:Affluent Population.GIF Asphalt File:Automobiles.GIF Beer Construction File:Fast Food.GIF File:Fine Jewelry.GIF Microchips File:Radiation Cleanup.GIF Steel

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)

Thumbnail Image Background

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)