Cyber Nations Wiki talk:Village 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

Bonus Resources File:Affluent Population.GIF File:Automobiles.GIF File:Fast Food.GIF File:Fine Jewelry.GIF File:Radiation Cleanup.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

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

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)

Thoughts

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)