NWNWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 3

Spam

 * We've had the good fortune of attracting our first professional spammer. See here. Please keep an eye out for this type of stuff. Their edits should be reverted immediately and an admin should ban them. -- Austicke 15:08, 29 Nov 2005 (PST)
 * They just hit two more pages, each time with different IP addresses. If this keeps up, we may need to require registration to edit pages. -- Austicke 20:09, 29 Nov 2005 (PST)


 * I added a spam filter to NWNWiki. Hopefully it helps. If you're unable to edit a page due to the filter (i.e., you get a false positive), please let me know. If you'd like to see the links that are being blocked, see here. -- Austicke 21:04, 29 Nov 2005 (PST)


 * We're getting hit with some spam this evening. Please keep an eye out and revert any bad stuff. -- Austicke 19:31, 11 Dec 2005 (PST)


 * Caught & dealt with another block. person's posting general pron/spam links in a bit of div code. It broke the main page by replacing "s with incorrect code. banned all IPs involved (+ a registered 1-post user). Deleted all blank pages involved.--Defunc7 19:52, 12 Dec 2005 (PST)


 * Thanks, Defunc7. I'll add the garbage to the Spam Blacklist. -- Austicke 02:45, 13 Dec 2005 (PST)


 * We got hit again. :( -- Pstarky 06:35, 18 Dec 2005 (PST)


 * Thanks for deleting it, Pstarky. I'll add it to the blacklist. BTW, as an admin, you should use the rollback link when reverting edits. -- Austicke 09:02, 18 Dec 2005 (PST)


 * Thanks for the tips. never work out that one. -- Pstarky 09:30, 18 Dec 2005 (PST)


 * I have moved the blacklist to the page Spam blacklist, so admins can add spam URLs to it without my intervention. (It's protected, so only admins can add to it.) Please add URLs to the top list with an explanation or date. As you can see, the URLs need to be in a particluar format, so follow the other examples. Thanks! -- Austicke 09:45, 18 Dec 2005 (PST) De-wikify old link. --The Krit 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, due to some changes between MediaWiki 1.4 & 1.5, the NWN2Wiki list needs to be in the MediaWiki namespace: NWN2Wiki:MediaWiki:Spam blacklist. -- Austicke 10:04, 18 Dec 2005 (PST)


 * It's actually my fault that the spam got through last night. I had added adult.dynu.net to the Spam blacklist last week when they first visited, but I entered it as  instead of  . Doh! If I had entered it properly, the spam would have been blocked. Sorry about that. -- Austicke 10:09, 18 Dec 2005 (PST) De-wikify old link. --The Krit 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I added another filter that will hopefully block the hidden spam using the div tag. -- Alec Usticke 18:58, 5 January 2006 (PST)


 * I've also blocked open proxies using SORBS DNSBL. This could very well block some regular users, so please let me know if anyone experiences problems. Thanks. -- Alec Usticke 01:06, 6 January 2006 (PST)


 * The additional measures seem to be helping, because I see other wikis being spammed, but we haven't been hit since. I know the spammers have been here, because their bots have registered accounts, but they obviously were unsuccesful at posting their spam links. I'm sure they'll figure a way around it eventually, but hopefully it'll take them a while. *knock on wood* -- Alec Usticke 10:20, 16 January 2006 (PST)


 * The spammers are out in full force today. They're doing a good job defeating the spam blacklist, so I'm going to install a captcha. -- Alec Usticke 14:03, 17 July 2006 (PDT)


 * Well, I added a captcha, but I think it needs a work, since it's case sensitive and probably confusing. Does anyone know PHP by any chance? -- Alec Usticke 15:17, 17 July 2006 (PDT)


 * The captcha is live. It's required whenever a new URL is added to a page and the editor isn't logged in with a confirmed email address (and also required to register a new account). This obviously won't stop a human spammer, but hopefully it will minimize the bot attacks -- with only minimal disruption to editors. -- Alec Usticke 07:22, 18 July 2006 (PDT)

No spam in the four days since the captcha was implemented. It looks like it's working. I'm sure they'll eventually find a way around it but hopefully it'll be a long, long time. -- Alec Usticke 09:26, 21 July 2006 (PDT)

MediaWiki upgrade
I've upgraded NWNWiki & NWN2Wiki to the latest software versions. Please let me know if you see any problems. (I'm sure NWN2Wiki is fine, but I did a lot of hacking on NWNWiki when it started without necessary keeping track of everything, so a customization could have been overwritten.) NWN2Wiki is on the very latest version (1.5.3), but NWNWiki is on version 1.4.12 (all bugs patched, but some features are different). I'll eventually upgrade NWNWiki to the 1.5.* version, but that will require a database conversion, so I'm in no rush. :) -- Austicke 01:05, 17 Dec 2005 (PST)

NWNWiki is now upgraded to MediaWiki version 1.5.4 -- the same version as NWN2Wiki. It seemed to work fine, but please let me know if you notice any strangeness. Thanks! -- Austicke 19:25, 25 December 2005 (PST)

FYI, you might want to go through your NWNWiki preferences again, because it now includes some new features -- such as email notifications. -- Alec Usticke 19:47, 25 December 2005 (PST)

We're now on version 1.5.5. -- Alec Usticke 19:39, 5 January 2006 (PST)

Upgraded to 1.6.7. -- Alec Usticke 13:39, 28 June 2006 (PDT)

Upgraded to MediaWiki 1.7.1 and PHP 5.1.2. -- Alec Usticke 10:07, 13 July 2006 (PDT)


 * Not done yet. Working on fixing some config errors. -- Alec Usticke 10:20, 13 July 2006 (PDT)


 * Should be done now. Please let me know if you find any errors. -- Alec Usticke 11:28, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

Do our NWNWiki logins work for NWN2Wiki, or do we need to create new account? Blacknight 10:07, 2 November 2006 (PST)


 * Unfortunately, NWN2Wiki uses a different database, so you'll need to create another account. You can use the same name/password combination for both though. I wanted to start totally fresh for NWN2Wiki, but I probably should have still linked the accounts. -- Alec Usticke 19:18, 2 November 2006 (PST)

UserScore
I don't want to make this a competition, but here's a list of the top 10 most active NWNWiki editors.


 * 1) Pstarky Philip Starkey (2649 Edits on 794 pages)
 * 2) Austicke Alec Usticke (2167 Edits on 1229 pages)
 * 3) Enigmatic Enigmatic (1061 Edits on 618 pages)
 * 4) Defunc7 (1036 Edits on 464 pages)
 * 5) Syrus Greycloak Karl Nickels (879 Edits on 301 pages)
 * 6) Countess Terra (846 Edits on 613 pages)
 * 7) Brick Thrower Brick Thrower (434 Edits on 167 pages)
 * 8) The Krit (410 Edits on 207 pages)
 * 9) GhostNWN Igor (248 Edits on 163 pages)
 * 10) Llandru Anil PurandarÃ© (241 Edits on 229 pages)

-- Alec Usticke 09:26, 30 June 2006 (PDT)

Before we move to Wikia, I thought I'd post a new tally.


 * 1) Pstarky Philip Starkey (2657 Edits on 796 pages)
 * 2) Austicke Alec Usticke (2447 Edits on 1374 pages)
 * 3) Enigmatic Enigmatic (1061 Edits on 618 pages)
 * 4) The Krit (1046 Edits on 580 pages)
 * 5) Defunc7 (1036 Edits on 464 pages)
 * 6) Alaisiagae (911 Edits on 557 pages)
 * 7) Syrus Greycloak Karl Nickels (893 Edits on 301 pages)
 * 8) Countess Terra (847 Edits on 613 pages)
 * 9) Brick Thrower Brick Thrower (429 Edits on 164 pages)
 * 10) WynterArwynRose Angel (280 Edits on 190 pages)

Not a huge change from a year ago. -- Alec Usticke 15:10, 31 July 2007 (PDT)

Player Pages
I have recently come across some pages that have led me to the conclusion that NWNWiki should not host pages that describe particular players. NWNWiki users can, of course, describe themselves on their user pages; what I am now objecting to is a page like Chokra Broodslayer, which is an actual wiki entry about a player.

So what is so bad about a few pages like that? The problem comes when the pages start to contain negative information, as is the case in Demon X and Evil Ufo. Pages like these can quickly lead to unfounded denouncements, which I believe would seriously undermine the integrity of NWNWiki. To avoid having to make subjective decisions as to what is acceptable and what is not, I propose that no wiki articles about particular individuals be allowed. This might be seen as drastic, but it is a simple and objective criterion, and I do not see a general benefit coming from even the positive player articles.

For completeness: the players article itself would also be deleted under this proposal.

This would be a big step that should only be taken if the community agrees to it. So this is my request for other opinions. How do others feel about this? Does anyone know of a benefit of keeping some articles about particular players? Does anyone think we should keep all articles about particular players despite the potential for abusive attacks? Does anyone have an alternate proposal? --The Krit 02:24, 1 May 2007 (PDT) (Dead links dewikified. --The Krit 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC))


 * Makes sense to me. I would be two those two "negative" pages were written by the players themselves though. -- Alec Usticke 16:31, 1 May 2007 (PDT)


 * Are we talking about Community Profile pages or some type of Player Character (from a given PW) page? I would think that if a PW has a page on here, it would be acceptable to list which players are part of that world.  I would hate to see us nerf the site over a few bad apples.  I've read those pages and frowned.  I also didn't like the fact that some people were using this site as a message board between friends.  (Posting on each others Character Page.)  But what can you do with people like that?  They'll do it anyways and get banned for it later.  This is truly a coin flip in my mind.  On one hand I'd hate to see us nerf a site.  On the other... what gain is there to show a page of a particular player on a particular, for a game where player characters come and go at the drop of a hat?  I would not be heart broken to see those pages go.  Bromium 07:26, 2 May 2007 (PDT)


 * Someone just removed the deletion request for Demon X . Is there an agreement on whether we get rid of those player account pages with mainly negative comments? GhostNWN 21:22, 13 July 2007 (PDT) (Dead link dewikified. --The Krit 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC))


 * There hasn't been much said about this. I think we should leave the deletion notices up for a while, and eventually, if there are no objections, those pages can get deleted. I don't know how long, but it should be at least a few months. In the meantime, anyone who objects should explain why (either here or on the talk pages for the player pages) instead of merely removing the deletion tag. --The Krit 21:31, 16 July 2007 (PDT)


 * One other thing -- the deletion notice reads "do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself." When an anonymous user removes the deletion tag (as was done in this case), it looks a bit like an attempt to circumvent this restriction. --The Krit 21:34, 16 July 2007 (PDT)


 * I restored the deletion tag when I posted the report here. I'm tempted to get rid of the pages by August really since the deletion reqs have been up for about a year now already with no objections it seems. GhostNWN 22:48, 16 July 2007 (PDT)


 * It's been much less than a year. In fact, it's been less than a month. --The Krit 22:23, 19 July 2007 (PDT)


 * I see no benefit to keeping articles on specific players. We should also be careful with statements about players or persons in other articles, if it isn't factual, like XX created script library YY, or free of any judgment, it should probably be removed. Amywien 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To add, I'd recommend we take note of the relevantWikipedia policy on Biographies and perhaps follow some of their guidelines. Amywien 13:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that getting rid of these pages is somewhere between "not a bad idea" and "definitely should be done". (Am I reading this right?) I'll add this restriction to the community portal page, then delete those pages when I go through the category:candidates for deletion (probably within the week). --The Krit 21:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The pages are now deleted. --The Krit 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Downtime
Sorry for the downtime today. My web host had a technical problem. We're back up now (obviously). -- Alec Usticke 12:27, 29 June 2007 (PDT)

Gaming wiki chat this Sunday!
Hi all,

On Sunday October 14th there is going to be an IRC chat for gaming wikis at the #wikia-gaming channel. Contributors, admins, and foudners of all/all gaming-related wiki on Wikia are invited to discuss common issues that we might have, sharing our experiences, and helping each other out. The time of the chat will be:

Please help to spread the word, and hope to see you there!

-User:PanSola 16:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible problems
I'm about to try a change that could potentially corrupt the appearance of every page on this wiki. However, if I do things right, all I will do is add options and no existing pages will change. If anyone notices pages that suddenly and inexplicably look odd, please post here with a description of what is wrong, which page is affected, and which skin you use to view NWNWiki. Thanks. --The Krit 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) ''No problems reported so far, so I guess I didn't mess up. --The Krit 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)''

FR and DnD subjects with no specific connection to NWN
I've started this discussion in Talk:Velsharoon, but I've decided its better to widen the discussion: I wonder if articles about things from the FR setting, or DnD that haven no other connection to NWN should exist in the NWNWkiki. The Forgotten Realms Wiki and the DnD wiki exist already, and they are maintained by more people than those that play NWN, and they already have far better articles about many of these subjects. I'm in favor of including small tidbits of RP information here and there, where appropriate, such as the note that the mace is favored by most clerics, but I don't think that, for example, an entire article about a deity belongs here. Unless the article has something NWN specific to mention, but even then, the main focus should be on the NWN specific information, maybe a with a link to the FR wiki. I propose a bunch of article deletions. --SevenMass 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to those articles existing. I don't think we should strive to cover those tangential topics, but I'm OK with keeping what's already out there. --The Krit 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There does exist an option in NWN to select a deity. With no effect on gameplay without module specific changes it is difficult to have any helpful information about it, but I feel we should at least have some reference to the default setting's deities.RAMss 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not add a link to the FR-wiki deities portal to the Deity article? Maybe Extend the Deity article here in the NWNWiki with a short description of all deities that are occur in the official campaigns, in order of how prominently they appear. (Tyr would be on the top of the list) Maybe add a specific link to each deity article in the FR-wiki. Mentioning errors about deities in the campaigns, such as the depiction of Jergal as evil, when in fact, he is LN. All this can be done in short enough pieces of text that they can be put in one article. --SevenMass 09:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, we can also keep separate articles about deities that appear in the official campaigns, but not in their current form, as righ now, they are just a copy of what the FR-wiki is doing. They should be shorter, and more focussed on their importance in NWN, just like I described above, except with each deity its own article. --SevenMass 09:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to say is, why copy the efforts of the FR-wiki here? I would suggest that people interested in describing FR deities, should spend those efforts on improving the FR-wiki. That way, more people are served than just NWN players. --SevenMass 09:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One weakness of this argument is that no one has been interested in describing the FR (and Greyhawk) deities here for years. Using your example, the last time someone added information to Velsharoon was October 2005; all the edits since then have just been improving the formatting. --The Krit 14:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Search Widget and Portals
How many people have noticed that we don't have a functional search widget? If you look at the search box over to the left, you'll see that it doesn't search NWNWiki - it searches WOWWiki. Not knowing if anyone other than the system administrator can edit that, I thought it might be worth mentioning. Also, is there a way to set up something similar to the portals that FRWiki uses, to make it easier to find pages without a functional search box? Yinepuhotep 10:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, having done a little further research after I posted, it seems that the search widget only shows up as WOWWiki if you're using the default skin. So the WOWWiki search problem could be fixed if anyone who registers is reminded to set a skin, or if the administrators choose a skin for the wiki other than the Wikia default. Also, the lack of portals is also a function of using the Wikia default skin, so that could be solved by setting a NWNWiki default skin, rather than using the Wikia default. Yinepuhotep 10:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The search works fine for me, even after checking with the default skin, and even after opening both NWN Wiki and WOWWiki. It would seem there is something strange going on with your browser's cache. If so, refreshing the page might fix it, or you might have to flush your cache completely. --The Krit 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That was my thought, too, but when I switch back to the default skin, the same thing happens, whether I flush my cache or not. For some reason, the default Wikia skin links to the WOWWiki search, but if I choose a skin - even if I choose the skin that is listed as "default" - I get the NWNWiki search. Very strange. Yinepuhotep 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)