Talk:Main Page/Archive 1

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search


There was a problem creating new pages earlier today/yesterday depending on your locale.

This seems to be resolved now. --Peter Hitchmough 08:39, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

I would like to discuss the heading "health sciences" on the main page. I clicked it, and was flummoxed. As far as I know, there is no such thing as "Health Science"as described. There is health care- that includes traditional medicine and such, but that's not science. Health Care deserves an article but I am too ignorant to know how to change the heading. I posted my confusion here instead of editing the article and discussing it there because I did not want to inadvertantly add it to CZ (which I maintain would be better called Z for Zendium and still could be the Citizens' Compendium, by the way.) Help! Nancy Sculerati

Just to make you happy :-) I just registered zendium.org (it appears the .com and .net variants are Danish tooth products--that's plausible). Maybe we will go with your variant, eventually anyway...

Presumably there are important enough differences between the topics "health care," a set of practices, and "health sciences" (or "medicine"), an area of study and research, to warrant different articles. Or did you mean to deny that? I mean, I will not gainsay you if you do wish to deny it. The list of topics on the front page is a list of disciplines, and "health care" per se doesn't name a discipline.

--Larry Sanger 16:52, 30 October 2006 (CST) (I signed this way by using four tildes in a row: ~~~~

P.S. Dr. Sculerati, please see medicine as well.

My proposal is to post in help section of the page the most actual info, covering technical problems during initial registration at least to get-off some load from tech team, replying on similar questions.

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Main_Page&diff=100001136&oldid=100001131

What's about necessity of registering user name in form of real "First name Last name" ? It's hard to find this somewhere BEFORE attempt of account registration IMHO. Anatoliy Kostrzhytskyy 05:06, 3 November 2006 (CST)

Thanks for pointing that (the real names requirement) out. I don't know where else we can mention that, except maybe in the invitation letters? It was discussed to death on the forum (and talked about on the mailing list in late September). We formulated the policy to help foster a different sort of community, to help make this all the more real. --ZachPruckowski 12:00, 3 November 2006 (CST)
It is mentioned in the invitation letters, and the statement of fundamental policies too.  :-) --Larry Sanger 13:34, 4 November 2006 (CST)


Dear Colleagues,

I was about to write a short piece about Cultural Policy/Strategy but I realise I cannot do so until I am 'au fait' with the technical side of things. Perhaps Larry it would be helpful if new recruits such as myself are emailed an attachment containing a 'tutorial'? Best wishes, aladin.

P.S. Perhaps this can be emailed - I am not sure how to receive or send messages! aladin

Aladin, I agree that many users need a tutorial, and apparently we do need to increase the priority on that. It's easier for us to put it here on the wiki, however, and e-mail a link. There's no "wiki-internal" mail except "user talk" pages, and many people don't know to look at their user talk pages anyway! --Larry Sanger 13:17, 7 November 2006 (CST)


Dear Larry,

Thanks for this. Surely you should be spending your time elsewhere than responding to 'administrative' queries? I am impressed! I am about to use 4 tildes as you suggest, which is a start for me. aladin Aladin 19:29, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Nonsense. It is impossible to have an open, bottom-up project if the project leader is not willing to work "in the trenches" as much as if not more than others. That's how I got Wikipedia started and CZ will be no different. --Larry Sanger 22:40, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Disciplines

Could I ask someone to rework the "Disciplines" list so that it reflects CZ:Discipline Workgroups? And in general, if you can improve the coherence and usefulness of this landing page, please do. Thanks. --Larry Sanger 22:40, 20 November 2006 (CST)

computer sciences

hi all,

where did the computer science pages vanish into? They seem to have been deleted or declared dead.

thanks for any hints upon their location.

Rob Tito

Hi Rob, the place to ask would be on the talk page of the Computers workgroup page, I guess. But since you ask here: see Category:Computers Workgroup. Does that answer the question? (Where did you find the comp sci articles previously?) --Larry Sanger 12:45, 10 December 2006 (CST)

There used to be a page linked to Computer Sciences and that page contained links to e.g. databases - but a different link then the computers page link. That one - including all the myriads of pages of information seems gone. Why ever it was done remains a mystery to me but since it has been done and probably for some good reasons I merely want to add a layer to reflect the broad territory of computers, science of computers and computer science. regards

Rob Robert Tito

I still don't know what page you mean. Do you mean, perhaps, computer science? All the pages are still there, to my knowledge (I don't think we've started deleting any pages). --Larry Sanger 13:02, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Redesigned main page

If you're reading this, then you're hip enough to know that talk pages are important and so you're also probably mediawiki-savvy. Well then you might be just the person to redesign Main Page. Here is my request: move the current contents of the main page to CZ:Project Home. On a newly-designed main page, use a modest, tasteful amount of color and tables to create a simple front page for CZ. (Hint: en.wikipedia.org ain't simple.) I would still like to see links to the entry articles for the workgroups (not the workgroup homepages; e.g., philosophy, not CZ:Philosophy Workgroup). We may also have a featured article on the front page, a la Wikipedia, but not so prominently placed (i.e., not in the upper left). Think: you're arriving at CZ for the very first time. What's the first thing you want to see? I leave that an open question. One thing you'll want to see, of course, is the start of an explanation of what CZ is, and what makes CZ different from WP. So: a link to a page explaining these things, and the first paragraph or two of that page. --Larry Sanger 13:02, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Welcome/Aim

Quick Help

Disciplines

Approved article

Seleced live article

Policy/Technical

I've started something on User:Aaron Brenneman/Sandbox0 if anyone wants to join in there. My current thoughts are a very basic, very streamlined front page with prominant links. /* Waits for rush of eager beavers in the user space. */
brenneman 22:22, 21 December 2006 (CST)

Whew. I read LS's comment above three times and cannot but take it to mean "be bold." So I was. I didn't copy/paste to CZ:Project Home as everything is all still there, just gussied up. Note too, I've only transcluded my version. I think I need to have a cup of tea now, hitting "save" just then has given me the shakes. - brenneman 00:33, 22 December 2006 (CST)
When I tell people to be bold, I mean it. Thanks for your help, Aaron. I think it's an improvement. Look at my comments on the talk page of your Sandbox0 page. --Larry Sanger 02:21, 22 December 2006 (CST)

OK, just a few comments, I would move the Approved Article and Selected Live Article cells up, and the help section down. And, actually, I'm not sure we need a help section on the main page--that's more appropriate for the "Project home" page. Ditto "Policy/Technical." The discipline list is well-placed though. Actually, the question is what we can maintain, interestingly, on the front page, that will be interesting to people. In other words, what cells are of interest to folks? --Larry Sanger 20:22, 22 December 2006 (CST)

The answer there depends on who we actually expect to end up on the main page: Wikipedia outcasts, discerning knowledge seekers, random Google-flux, chickens? My belief is that if we presume complete ignorance of wiki-ways we can't go wrong. Neophytes will appreciate the gentle introduction, jaded veterans will *blip* over it without noticing. I'd like to see a help section in some form that includes:
  • A statement about reliability - It's the elephant in the room, but if it addresses honestly and clearly up front it a better approach. Bold faced "It's unreliable" maybe not, but at least a strong caveat.
  • How articles get made - Following on logically from "Use caution" with regards to reliability is why complete and perfect coverage is not the goal, eg how does this text get here?
Without fear of sounding like I'm blowing smoke up anyone's bum, I'd suspect that curiosity about Larry Sanger will also run high: Those "second tier" initiates whom have used/refenced Wikipedia but are not intimate with its history will probably want to know basic just-who-does-he-think-he-is sort of information.
The working draft for markII is at User:Aaron Brenneman/Sandbox1, I thought a little stability was preferable to chopping and changing right out in the open. I've put a link to homepage (at .org) top right an made the intro text differenct, and started making the "help" section more generic.
brenneman 17:43, 24 December 2006 (CST)

Comment on "wikipedia's main page isn't simple." While I agree that the english main wikipedia page is not simple, I would argue that wikipedia has a good solution to that... anyone who wants a simple search page like google just goes to wikipedia.org instead of the en homepage (that's what I do). I would recommend that you imitate google and google homepage. Since we have individual accounts we should just be able to have a personalized homepage like google homepage or... a simple homepage like google's simple version. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 00:33, 25 December 2006 (CST)

Move?

I think this page might do well with a name like "Portal:Citizendium" or "Citizendium:Main Page," since the main page is not an article and should technically not be in the article space. This was recently brought up for discussion on the English Wikipedia, but many users opposed the move because of the number of links that would need to be fixed, both within Wikipedia as well as in other websites. Here, though, this could be done without excessive difficulty since the project is still somewhat new. Ted Zellers 23:03, 29 December 2006 (CST)

I don't know what the argument here is. Main Page is a special page by default. If the concern is just that the page appears to be in the main namespace--well, who cares? What difference does that make? --Larry Sanger 09:47, 15 January 2007 (CST)

The argument is that the main page is not in accordance with the rules (but can be-- [1], [2]), but if indeed no one cares, then I am content to make an exception. --Ted Zellers 17:33, 22 January 2007 (CST)
The only practical I can think of is ... what if there is one day a famous movie or book or something called Main Page? Clearly, we could place the article at Main Page (film) or Main Page (book), but how would the interested reader get there from Main Page? Would there be a disambiguation notice at the top of the front page? It would be ideal to have the front page located at some even simpler address, like http://en.citizendium.org/main or such, but I don't know how feasible that is in mediawiki.—Nat Krause 14:29, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Featured this-and-that

Right now we have no mechanism whereby featured articles and persons are chosen. Until we do have such a mechanism, anything we "feature" here will probably go for many weeks without being changed (as was the case recently). So I'm removing the "featured" stuff until some people step up and take responsibility for "featured" status! --Larry Sanger 09:47, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Reworked page

Having looked at it for a few weeks, I think the page is far too busy. I think we need Ori's help here.

Also, can someone please add the following lines prominently yet in an aesthetically pleasing fashion?

Contribute to the Citizendium's pre-launch funding drive!
We'll be building our "launch war chest" through the end of February.

--Larry Sanger 17:25, 19 January 2007 (CST)


Why 'war' chest at the top of every page? Can't a more value-neutral phrase be found? How about just calling it a 'launch fund'?

I'm hoping to help recruit citizendium contributors who can develop articles on conflict resolution, peace-building etc. The phrase 'war-chest' at the top of every citizendium page doesn't sit too well with this.

Sorry but I don't know how to edit it myself. Kitty McVey 07:06, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Colors

(1) The colors, as opposed to having each box with the same color, are a good change - BUT- tone it down, go to the palette used and make each one in the same family- however you chose them- but no more than one step above white each. Otherwise, it looks jarring and unprofessional. Nancy Sculerati MD 13:29, 20 January 2007 (CST) (2) Also, besides lowering the value of the colors, you have a relatively cool palette except for that pink on the right. If you were to push the pink towards violet, more of a blue/purple violet and less of a hot pink/ red/violet the whole thing might look very good. The blue/puple/green is good, if it was "less definite" (that is- closer to white, lower in value). Nancy Sculerati MD 13:34, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Okay-dokey, I will see what I can do. --Larry Sanger 13:43, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Teach me how to do colors and i'll go at it. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:46, 20 January 2007 (CST) Man isn't there some software out there that would make colors and formatting easier? so I don't have to learn code? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:49, 20 January 2007 (CST)

It seems we have someone here related to Mondriaan, however he used more primary colors. It seems a bit too crowded now in my opinion, too many colors making the page seem cluttered and very very busy. Less cluttering means easier to read - the borders do that so why use AND borders AND colors? It seems that can be lessened to some extent.

regards [[User:Robert Tito}Robert Tito]]Cassiopeia 13:53, 20 January 2007 (CST)

And Nancy did it, thanks much better. Less bothersome usage of colors. again thanks Nancy. Robert TitoCassiopeia 14:16, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Actually, I figured out how to "hack it". I like it better this way-what do you guys think? Nancy Sculerati MD 14:18, 20 January 2007 (CST)

OK, Nancy and I were editing at the same time. I picked out a bunch of colors...lighter and related...see [3]. And here is Nancy's latest: [4]. Strangely, when I look at her page in the page history it doesn't come up correctly! --Larry Sanger 14:20, 20 January 2007 (CST)

I'll put mine back by hand if you want me to...Nancy Sculerati MD 14:22, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Go ahead! --Larry Sanger 14:29, 20 January 2007 (CST)

See [5] for my latest, which I'm not married to. --Larry Sanger 14:31, 20 January 2007 (CST)

I like the way it is now, can you teach me how to refer you? I'd like to explain why it work.Nancy Sculerati MD 14:41, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Yeah I like yours better now. --Larry Sanger 14:49, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Here's my thoughts: Color on the web is not purely decorative, used well it conveys both mood and information. I like my latest version because it connects connected topics in a subtle way- like "live articles" and "approved articles" which are in a sort of default yellow/beige that is so slightly different than the yellow default that makes up the Welome and Disciplines blocks so as not to be at all jarring - but to still separate the two boxes of articles. The fact that the mirror image of an L is made by the Welcome and Discussion boxes when they are in the same color makes the whole geometric scheme less confusing than making each of those boxes a different color. Putting that central "Welcome Section" in the same white as the page backgound highlights it without making the page much busier. Finally, the very pale blue of the "Our Project" and "Our Contributors" indicates another kind of category that helps in organizing the page. It's pale enough so that it is not jarring against the white or yellow, and it complements our Citizendium blue logo. I used to be my own webmaster and long ago I was actually very good at this stuff. I can use color and hyperlinks to make instantly recognizeable levels of webpages, each at a different level of expertise, but of course- I don't really know what I'm doing, I'm just fooling around and so anyone who can do better is more than welcome to. Nancy Sculerati MD 14:51, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Well, it makes sense to me! --Larry Sanger 15:39, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Computers respective Computer Science

According to me this topic should be part of the natural sciences, and not a part of Arts. Computer Science developed from both physics as mathematics - not from any other major scientific field. Application of computers may result in related - yet derived - topics and sub fields. If all agree I will put Computers into Natural Science, and restore the link to Computer Science or Computers - when appropriate (both pages have been in the Live section - it remains unclear why they were forked and decapitated). Robert TitoCassiopeia 14:25, 21 January 2007 (CST)

The only issue is Engineering, I think. Isn't that part of physics and natural science? If it's not then the same thinking that put it wherever it is likely shunted Computers too. Personally, I think they both belong with Physics and Mathematics. Nancy Sculerati MD 15:44, 21 January 2007 (CST)

"Applied arts" does not, obviously, mean fine arts. Engineering and computer science are both primarily, first and foremost, about how to do things, not about the study of nature in itself. That's why they're applied arts. For example, see: http://42explore.com/42exploreapplied.htm

We don't have to stick with the title "Applied Arts." --Larry Sanger 15:54, 21 January 2007 (CST)

If I am not mistaken processor design is highly dependent upon state of the art physics (90 nm, 65 nm --> 45 nm technology), engineering is highly dependent upon basics such as material sciences - hence a subsidiary of physics. The applied logics of processors (microcode) as well as compilers all are applied mathematics, so these two I guess should belong in natural science not in applied arts (yes I know this is not fine arts) since they both depend too closely to basic sciences. I know I will opt to place them in Natural Science. Makes much more sense. Robert TitoCassiopeia 16:31, 21 January 2007 (CST)

DOH - too bad plain text files do not have a locking mechanism to prevent multiple edits (leading to editting in vain :) ) Well this is one shortcoming - so we have to live with it Robert TitoCassiopeia 16:43, 21 January 2007 (CST)

This is getting humorous: Nancy and I have been doing the same - at approximately the same time - overwriting the other's changes. I hope the latest is ok now. This is a big Homer DOH. Robert TitoCassiopeia 16:53, 21 January 2007 (CST)

If engineering isn't an applied art, then what is? And if computer science doesn't involve engineering, what does?

Anyway, feel free to proceed; we'll be changing it even more when we get a Discipline Workgroup Committee going. But notice that if we are going to edit the workgroup placement, we can't do it just here. We also need to do it on CZ:Discipline Workgroups. --Larry Sanger 16:58, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Valid arguments, the same applies for instance to medicine, that seems to have vanished all the way. I do have a strong feeling (based no doubt upon the system and qualifications used in europe) to talk about natural or beta sciences, applied or gamma sciences (medicine, engineering, computers,economics etc) and alpha sciences (jura, languages, theology, psychology, psychiatry etc). But then that seems for the major part culturally and historically determined. Robert TitoCassiopeia 17:08, 21 January 2007 (CST) Workgroup placement now reflects the moved location of computer and engineering - until further notice that is Robert TitoCassiopeia 17:25, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Anyone (hint, Dr. Sanger) want to move the forums around to reflect the change?--ZachPruckowski 19:14, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Just a question: where is medicine? it should be an applied arts (gamma) science, but all I find is health science - not necessarily synonyms. I would be inclined to exchange health science for medicine and health science as topic in applied arts (even though both should be there). Robert TitoCassiopeia 19:24, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Medicine has not vanished, it's part of the health sciences. That's all part of a plan to avoid the Nineteenth Century classification of medicine as allopathy, usually invoked by those who try to classify all healing arts as medicine, and then distinguish between western tradititional medicine, which they clain is allopathy, and other forms of alternative medicine, like homeopathy, - since that's the way many of these fields started a hundred or so years ago. Since many legitimate healing arts (such as the counseling of bereaved families by clergy, psychotherapy, and the "art" of bedside medicine as practiced by physicians like myself) have no firm basis in science, they can all be discussed in healing arts without muddying up health science. Meanwhile, the healing arts can be taken for the very important activities that they are, without reducing them to "applied biology". Take a look at the Wikipedian article "Medicine" to see what I mean. Nancy Sculerati MD 19:34, 21 January 2007 (CST) Exactly what I meant, with the exclusion of alternative medicin - like magnetism and the likes (based upon no solid scientific data or evidence. Whereas alternatives like acupuncture are totally embedded within medicine. I was just thinking about that difference.Robert TitoCassiopeia 19:42, 21 January 2007 (CST)

The Logo needs to replace outdated logo on sidebar. Too overwhelming at top of Main Box of Main Page. Might work better if solid black scape repleced by one of ther blues or yellows already in play.Nancy Sculerati MD 09:37, 23 January 2007 (CST)

I agree, but is it all right for a day or two? We're waiting for different-sized versions from Paul Hitchmough. Hope he comes through for us! --Larry Sanger 09:50, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Sure, if it's allright with you (all) I'll download it and play with it myself, as well. Nancy Sculerati MD 10:03, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Well, look at what I have up there now. Also, I'll send you the original file to play with, if you think you can improve the coloring of the "zen" letters ;-) --Larry Sanger 10:29, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Paul H. finally came through for us. The new logo, with a slightly grey key and cleaner-colored lettering, is now up. Now we just need to have someone upload the upper left logo! --Larry Sanger 14:03, 24 January 2007 (CST)

I love the logo in the upper left. I'm going to try an experiment and delete in from the Main Box, where I think it's overkill. Nancy Sculerati MD 14:59, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Help! I tried to move the Citizendium staff letter down into one of the boxes and I've made a mess.sorry.Nancy Sculerati MD 15:04, 24 January 2007 (CST)

The Main Page needs to be protected

For any of the constables reading this, I'm making a suggestion. As you probably already know from the header, I think the main page needs to be protected. I checked out the history, and it seems to be a vandal magnet. Now I know I'm just an editor, but I just think something needs to be done.-- Sean McCreary 17:05, 31 January 2007 (CST)

We kind of like the idea that a citizen can make changes to the mainpage, but- of course, you are absolutely right about it being a target for vandals. Nancy Sculerati MD 17:10, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Well, let's wait for now...the notion that anyone can edit even our front page will be impressive to many, and put the kibosh (for as long as it is in fact unprotected, anyway) on the idea that CZ is any less open or collaborative than WP! --Larry Sanger 22:27, 31 January 2007 (CST)

As the vandal storm is over, I'm of the opinion we could unprotect the main page. --Mike Johnson 15:49, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Sandbox

Perhaps Citizendium_Pilot:Sandbox should be prominently displayed at the Main Page of the CZ and also must be mentioned in the Welcome mail to all the new users. Supten 01:17, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Improving our defenses against vandalism

The most urgent task seems to be preventing the vandals from creating more accounts. Any constable can access Special:CheckUser, submit queries regarding accounts used for vandalism, and retrieve the IP addresses used by vandals. Queries can also be submitted to find all edits made from certain IP addresses. The use of the checkuser tool is described here. IP addresses used for vandalism should be checked to determine if they are open proxies. If so, they may be blocked indefinitely. Non-open proxy IPs used for repeated creation of vandalism accounts may also be blocked, for far longer periods of time than the 24 hour block produced by the autoblocking function (if an autoblock is produced at all). Finally, all IPs in a range being used for extensive vandalism can be blocked with rangeblocks. For example, blocking 255.255.0.0/16 would block the 65536 IPs between 255.255.0.0 and 255.255.255.255, inclusive. The method for calculating rangeblocks is described here.

Pagemove vandalism is entirely preventable, without restricting the normal editing of pages. The page protection function can be used to protect against pagemoves only, which restricts pagemoves to constables, but still allows any author or editor with an active account to edit the page. Long-term pagemove protection might be advisable for any pages which have been subject to pagemove vandalism, and are unlikely to need to be moved frequently.

Various freely-licensed RC Patrol tools, such as this have been developed on Wikipedia, and could be used here. These tools display the diffs from Special:Recentchanges in a scrolling format, allowing vandalism to be quickly identified and reverted, and accounts used for vandalism to be rapidly blocked. However, to operate, such tools need Special:Recentchanges to be parsed in a special format, as seen here. The analagous RC feed on the Citizendium doesn't appear to be functional. Perhaps the appropriate functionality could be added to the software.

While I've described some significant areas in which our defenses against vandalism could be improved, two aspects of our counter-vandalism efforts are distinctly superior to Wikipedia's. First, blocking vandals on the spot without warning avoids the substantial delays caused by issuing vandalism warnings, then checking to see if the vandals are continuing. Secondly, the requirement that users register accounts, and supply valid email addresses before editing prevents much casual vandalism. With the aid of the additional vandalism control measures I've described, vandals who are determined to access the Citizendium should be reverted and blocked in minutes, if not seconds. David Ellis 21:31, 9 February 2007 (CST)

One preventive measure we can take is surf for sites of free open proxies (e.g., here)and ban those IPs. That will help some. Stephen Ewen 22:32, 9 February 2007 (CST)
That's very helpful. Thanks. --Mike Johnson 23:56, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Blocking on the spot seems to be essential (the rest of "obstacles" is relatively easy to overcome). Maybe we need a little more eyes on recent changes. Paradoxically, our "anti-vandal policy" seems to attract the forces of destruction... Observe that our vandals are technically skilled and their actions are sometimes complex and well prepared (one does not see this so often on WP, I can say this as an anti-vandal-tool user!).

I guess in the domain of anti-vandal prevention we could benefit from WP experience. For example, it is not necessary to surf for open proxies - a handy comprehensive list of confirmed and blocked ones is here (a few thousand entries..). If just a plain list of IPs could be better adapted for an (automated) task of blocking, I could prepare a list like this one, just let me know. --Alex Halicz (hello) 05:33, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Hi Alex, sounds fantastic. Could you, please, compile the list? Then, basically, tell us what to do with it. Is it something to give to the developers? Surely they can upload the list directly into the database, no? --Larry Sanger 16:51, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Create a crontab with periodicity of 1 hr and block every found IP from free proxies. Must be easy (working on unix) and even on windoze (cant vouch for weesta) Robert Tito | Talk 16:55, 10 February 2007 (CST)

So the list will be there soon (hopefully, today). I guess the best solution is to give it to developers - and take their advice, since they are our "editors" at the technical level ;). Otherwise, I'm not sure what kind of automatism can be achieved using a regular constable account. For example, I can turn the list into a series of URLs, each of which, when launched in a browser, blocks a single IP. Then a constable just clicks one link after another and blocks proxies quick and easy (sometimes I use similar method for massive corrections of typos on WP). This works well (and few constables could do the job in few days) provided that a link is enough to block (not sure).--Alex Halicz (hello) 01:44, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Another approach of course could be this: upon blocking an account due to vandalism (and with that reason given) the user can get disconnected from the database and the server for (lets say) 45 minutes. Adding a flag to nuke that person would take not much effort and the offenses will immediately cease. That period might also be indefinite but this is for arguments sake. The offending IP can be stored in the database and upon recreation of SOME account in the future that account might be labeled e.g. purple (caution needed). In that case we allow anybody access, offenders get kicked (you know where) and newly made discredited accounts get visually alerts indicating that. Robert Tito | Talk 02:01, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Use of page protections

While full protection is advisable for constables' user pages, the use of full protection on articles, their associated talk pages, and on constables' main user talk pages, as seen in the protection log, limits the ability of authors and editors who are not constables to edit articles, to discuss articles, and to contact constables. If these pages are experiencing a problem with pagemove vandalism, perhaps they could be protected against pagemoves only, as demonstrated here. David Ellis 19:15, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Another conceivable solution for frequently vandalized pages is restricting the edit rights for newly registered users. To keep openness, the time limit can vary (from a few hours to a couple of days, say) in function of the observed frequence of vandalisms. I think this virtually does not influence the serious authors while it makes long-awaited-and-on-spot-blocked vandalisms unattractive. It seem to work well with our registering system that requires a valid e-mail account (so that preparing a vandalism is a bit more time-consuming). Certainly, in a long term approved and fully protected articles solve the problem in the best way, as it is not an exploit to vandalize an "invisible" draft. In the meantime, however, we can keep our place tidy. I hope it is technically not too difficult. --Alex Halicz (hello) 04:25, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Borrowed from wikipedia

The article How to convert Wikipedia articles has been recently updated with an important encouragement for writing from scratch. Still on our main page we suggest borrowing from Wikipedia. Maybe we can find a better formulation? For example, if we replaced "borrowed from" with "inspired by" with the wikilink to the above mentioned article, it would sound good to me. But I'm pretty sure that a native speaker would propose something better yet. --Alex Halicz (hello) 15:40, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Very good point again Alex... --Larry Sanger 15:45, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Launch War Chest

Seems like we should take down the "We'll be building our "launch war chest" through the end of February." at the top of pages. Anyone know where the file for that is? :) --Mike Johnson 18:52, 28 February 2007 (CST)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Should it be erased, or extended? Is it at all effective? -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 07:35, 1 March 2007 (CST)