User talk:Jillium - Revision history

Tyciol at 14:42, 6 November 2013

2013-11-06T14:42:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 6 November 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Archives: [[/9-11\|2009 to 2011]]		Archives: [[/9-11\|2009 to 2011]]

			=May=
	==Yo==		==Yo==
	You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? [[User:Tyciol\|Ty]] 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)		You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? [[User:Tyciol\|Ty]] 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

			=October=
	==What is your opinion?==		==What is your opinion?==

	It appeared to become unfeasible (and has been throughout your absence) to maintain an encyclopedia and frequent updates on the Wiki. I propose to refocus on content that maintains its value throughout time - that is any content built upon research quotations as a foundation, testimony, guides and archive material that isn't outdated or historically important. The question is then whether to retain it within a restructured Wiki or move it to a new-look, streamlined CMS (Wordpress?) and archive the Wiki with all of its inactive projects. [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins\|talk]]) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (CEST)		It appeared to become unfeasible (and has been throughout your absence) to maintain an encyclopedia and frequent updates on the Wiki. I propose to refocus on content that maintains its value throughout time - that is any content built upon research quotations as a foundation, testimony, guides and archive material that isn't outdated or historically important. The question is then whether to retain it within a restructured Wiki or move it to a new-look, streamlined CMS (Wordpress?) and archive the Wiki with all of its inactive projects. [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins\|talk]]) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (CEST)

The Admins: /* What is your opinion? */

2013-10-18T23:18:19Z

What is your opinion?

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 18 October 2013
Line 25:		Line 25:

	Regardless of the platform, I propose we replace the bullet point format of the Testimony and Research projects with [http://i6.minus.com/iujUMB2RjfL9z.png this] to allay the wall-of-text effect. (Only a stylesheet change is required, the wikitext would remain the same.) [[User:Jillium\|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium\|talk]]) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (CEST)		Regardless of the platform, I propose we replace the bullet point format of the Testimony and Research projects with [http://i6.minus.com/iujUMB2RjfL9z.png this] to allay the wall-of-text effect. (Only a stylesheet change is required, the wikitext would remain the same.) [[User:Jillium\|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium\|talk]]) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (CEST)

			:That's just fine. I'm in favor of changing the whole site design, as it has come slightly unstuck over a PHP upgrade that bridged 4 years. If this can be done in MediaWiki, then good - please look for more templates that may be preferable with MW as the front page. The type of theme you presented above (with a homepage) is the kind of thing I'm talking about - and I don't care much about the color scheme - light and user-friendly should do. [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins\|talk]]) 01:18, 19 October 2013 (CEST)

Jillium: /* What is your opinion? */

2013-10-12T20:13:22Z

What is your opinion?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:13, 12 October 2013
Line 22:		Line 22:
	:::That sort of WordPress sounds fine. [http://www.pädophilie-irrtümer.de This site] does look nice. I just think it might be easier to restructure the wiki than set up a new platform and maintain both (the software is supposed to be kept up-to-date, etc.).		:::That sort of WordPress sounds fine. [http://www.pädophilie-irrtümer.de This site] does look nice. I just think it might be easier to restructure the wiki than set up a new platform and maintain both (the software is supposed to be kept up-to-date, etc.).
	:::In case you decide to stick with the wiki, I made a quick Photoshop of what a simplified skin might look like, though I don't particularly like the way it turned out: [https://i.minus.com/ibhRrKvNjzDwPr.png this] ([https://i.minus.com/ikmCiX8s1MfDp.png alt font]). Do you have anything in mind for the style/colour scheme? [[User:Jillium\|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium\|talk]]) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (CEST)		:::In case you decide to stick with the wiki, I made a quick Photoshop of what a simplified skin might look like, though I don't particularly like the way it turned out: [https://i.minus.com/ibhRrKvNjzDwPr.png this] ([https://i.minus.com/ikmCiX8s1MfDp.png alt font]). Do you have anything in mind for the style/colour scheme? [[User:Jillium\|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium\|talk]]) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (CEST)


			Regardless of the platform, I propose we replace the bullet point format of the Testimony and Research projects with [http://i6.minus.com/iujUMB2RjfL9z.png this] to allay the wall-of-text effect. (Only a stylesheet change is required, the wikitext would remain the same.) [[User:Jillium\|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium\|talk]]) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (CEST)

Jillium at 00:06, 11 October 2013

2013-10-11T00:06:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:06, 11 October 2013
Line 19:		Line 19:

	::If the MW were to be archived, it would have to be edited to exclude useful material that were moved to WP and redirect its traffic to the new interface. If it were just to be altered, I'd favor making MW the site root. We would have to draw a line between material to delete, material to label archived and orphan from the new directory structure and the core projects which will be maintained by a small team of editors and kept up to date. [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins\|talk]]) 14:19, 10 October 2013 (CEST)		::If the MW were to be archived, it would have to be edited to exclude useful material that were moved to WP and redirect its traffic to the new interface. If it were just to be altered, I'd favor making MW the site root. We would have to draw a line between material to delete, material to label archived and orphan from the new directory structure and the core projects which will be maintained by a small team of editors and kept up to date. [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins\|talk]]) 14:19, 10 October 2013 (CEST)

			:::That sort of WordPress sounds fine. [http://www.pädophilie-irrtümer.de This site] does look nice. I just think it might be easier to restructure the wiki than set up a new platform and maintain both (the software is supposed to be kept up-to-date, etc.).
			:::In case you decide to stick with the wiki, I made a quick Photoshop of what a simplified skin might look like, though I don't particularly like the way it turned out: [https://i.minus.com/ibhRrKvNjzDwPr.png this] ([https://i.minus.com/ikmCiX8s1MfDp.png alt font]). Do you have anything in mind for the style/colour scheme? [[User:Jillium\|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium\|talk]]) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (CEST)

The Admins: /* What is your opinion? */

2013-10-10T12:19:35Z

What is your opinion?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:19, 10 October 2013
Line 15:		Line 15:

	:Do you have any intentions for the splash page? If the forum's not coming back, I could create a new link image for some other section if you want. The font is D3 Egoistism. [[User:Jillium\|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium\|talk]]) 02:10, 9 October 2013 (CEST)		:Do you have any intentions for the splash page? If the forum's not coming back, I could create a new link image for some other section if you want. The font is D3 Egoistism. [[User:Jillium\|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium\|talk]]) 02:10, 9 October 2013 (CEST)

			::What I have been looking at is a reader-friendly application of WP (could also be a refreshed MW - which you appear to be more familiar with), where the blog format is either absent, or used as a front page (site root) for pointing to recent updates, etc. The format of MW seems to cause problems with editing conflicts, regardless of what effect it has on participation - for example, there is plenty of unencyclopedic and inconsistently formatted content on this Wiki that probably needs modifying or removing altogether. It puts a burden on admin users to police bad formatting and fluff editing. However, given that there is no forum (is there anybody with the will to moderate one?), I don't rate the chances of attracting a large team of editors, let alone those who are capable of generating useful content. In fact, I don't object to two or three active editors contributing only useful material that will be seen by more readers - which opens up the possibility of using MW, as those editors would not be constantly cleaning up.

			::If the MW were to be archived, it would have to be edited to exclude useful material that were moved to WP and redirect its traffic to the new interface. If it were just to be altered, I'd favor making MW the site root. We would have to draw a line between material to delete, material to label archived and orphan from the new directory structure and the core projects which will be maintained by a small team of editors and kept up to date. [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins\|talk]]) 14:19, 10 October 2013 (CEST)

Jillium at 00:10, 9 October 2013

2013-10-09T00:10:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:10, 9 October 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:

	It appeared to become unfeasible (and has been throughout your absence) to maintain an encyclopedia and frequent updates on the Wiki. I propose to refocus on content that maintains its value throughout time - that is any content built upon research quotations as a foundation, testimony, guides and archive material that isn't outdated or historically important. The question is then whether to retain it within a restructured Wiki or move it to a new-look, streamlined CMS (Wordpress?) and archive the Wiki with all of its inactive projects. [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins\|talk]]) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (CEST)		It appeared to become unfeasible (and has been throughout your absence) to maintain an encyclopedia and frequent updates on the Wiki. I propose to refocus on content that maintains its value throughout time - that is any content built upon research quotations as a foundation, testimony, guides and archive material that isn't outdated or historically important. The question is then whether to retain it within a restructured Wiki or move it to a new-look, streamlined CMS (Wordpress?) and archive the Wiki with all of its inactive projects. [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins\|talk]]) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (CEST)

			:In my opinion, restructuring the wiki would be a better choice. The standard blog format, with recent posts burying older ones, doesn't make sense for timeless content and can be difficult to navigate. A CMS without the blog format would be okay, but probably even less successful in encouraging collaborative article editing, which MediaWiki is designed for.

			:Moving to a CMS while archiving the wiki would leave two versions of the same content. Duplicate content doesn't fare well with search engines, and the version already established on Google (wiki) would presumably become outdated. There's also the French translations to consider. We could still modernize a bit by editing the stylesheet to hide wiki functionality from logged-out users who don't need it. (Just as examples: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Minit_skin_-_anonymous_user.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:SkinScreenshotScreenRealEstate.PNG] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Cavendish_mod.png][https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:DroneSkin.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:WordPress_TwentyTen_skin.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:MediaWikiSkinTheErudite.png] [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:BluWiki.png])

			:Regarding your BC post, I doubt MediaWiki's learning curve is much to blame for the state of NW. There are after all [http://ttte.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WikiActivity very active] wikis about Thomas the Tank Engine and every other trivial subject, and our old WordPress is even deader than this wiki. There just aren't many people who have the stamina to contribute on any platform in this cultural climate.

			:Do you have any intentions for the splash page? If the forum's not coming back, I could create a new link image for some other section if you want. The font is D3 Egoistism. [[User:Jillium\|Jillium]] ([[User talk:Jillium\|talk]]) 02:10, 9 October 2013 (CEST)

The Admins at 15:43, 7 October 2013

2013-10-07T15:43:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:43, 7 October 2013
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Yo==		==Yo==
	You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? [[User:Tyciol\|Ty]] 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)		You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? [[User:Tyciol\|Ty]] 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

			==What is your opinion?==

			It appeared to become unfeasible (and has been throughout your absence) to maintain an encyclopedia and frequent updates on the Wiki. I propose to refocus on content that maintains its value throughout time - that is any content built upon research quotations as a foundation, testimony, guides and archive material that isn't outdated or historically important. The question is then whether to retain it within a restructured Wiki or move it to a new-look, streamlined CMS (Wordpress?) and archive the Wiki with all of its inactive projects. [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] ([[User talk:The Admins\|talk]]) 17:43, 7 October 2013 (CEST)

Tyciol: Replacing page with 'Archives: 2009 to 2011 ==Yo== You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? ~~~~'

2013-05-17T19:27:28Z

Replacing page with 'Archives: 2009 to 2011 ==Yo== You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? ~~~~'

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-__NOTITLE__
+Archives: [[/9-11|2009 to 2011]]
-==GuyonSoc==
+==Yo==
-You appear to know about the detail not elaborated: [[List of hoax pedophilia organisations]]. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 13:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
+You're a crat, gonna edit anymore? [[User:Tyciol|Ty]] 19:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tyciol: restoring stephen's comment that he deleted, will use a strikethrough to indicate that he cancelled it.

2011-09-19T05:56:58Z

restoring stephen's comment that he deleted, will use a strikethrough to indicate that he cancelled it.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:56, 19 September 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTITLE__		__NOTITLE__
			=2009=
	==Do you have an opinion on ^notitle?==		==Do you have an opinion on ^notitle?==

	I think that it unclutters some pages. [[User:Rez\|Rez (The Administrators - anonym)]] 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)		I think that it unclutters some pages. [[User:Rez\|Rez (The Administrators - anonym)]] 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

	==GuyonSoc==		==GuyonSoc==
			You appear to know about the detail not elaborated: [[List of hoax pedophilia organisations]]. [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] 13:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

			==Rollbacks==
			<s>A lot of my edits are being rolled back for no obvious reason (e.g. uncontroversial spelling/punctuation corrections). Can you explain?[[User:Stephen James\|Stephen James]] 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)</s>
			:The above user rolled back this message, I restored it for record-keeping purposes. I am unsure why they did so. [[User:Tyciol\|Ty]] 05:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

	~~You appear to know about the detail not elaborated: http://newgon~~.~~com/wiki/List_of_hoax_pedophilia_organisations~~ [[User:~~The Admins~~\|~~The Admins~~]] 13:29, ~~23 June 2009~~ (UTC)		=2011=
			==Sup==
			Hi Jillium I noticed that you were a bureaucrat and were last active March of this year. How's it hangin'? [[User:Tyciol\|Ty]] 05:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephen James: Reverted edits by Stephen James (Talk) to last version by The Admins

2009-06-25T05:14:44Z

Reverted edits by Stephen James (Talk) to last version by The Admins

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:14, 25 June 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:

	You appear to know about the detail not elaborated: http://newgon.com/wiki/List_of_hoax_pedophilia_organisations [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] 13:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)		You appear to know about the detail not elaborated: http://newgon.com/wiki/List_of_hoax_pedophilia_organisations [[User:The Admins\|The Admins]] 13:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

	~~== Rollbacks ==~~

	~~A lot of my edits are being rolled back for no obvious reason (e.g. uncontroversial spelling/punctuation corrections). Can you explain?[[User:Stephen James\|Stephen James]] 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)~~