WikiChristian talk:Village pump
| Archives
|
|---|
Contents
Creating new page and editing
How/when can I create new pages and edit some other pages?
--Lion 02:33, 21 January 2008 (PST)
Getting rid of file names with external links
Does anyone know how to get rid of files that have been spammed and have an external link to pornographic sites in their names. Search for "Paradise Community Church" and you'll see what I mean. There are 127 articles that have this external link attached to their name. How do we get rid of them? --Muser 06:02, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- I've found out how to get rid of the above. Move the page to its original title and delete the redirect. Kathleen.wright5 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Image
Has a cross or crucifix ever been considered as the main image for this site? I think that the Holy Bible image reinforces Sola Scriptura, which may be representative of English-speaking Christians but certainly not the other billion. Christianity is so much more than the Bible.
15:38, 1 December 2007 (EST)
- You're right, a cross may indeed be a more representive image of Christianity. I'm not too fussed either way though - it's the words in the website that are more important than the logo. --Muser 05:41, 3 December 2007 (EST)
Missing logo -- update
Quite a while back (it's in Archive 1) I mentioned that the logo in the upper left-hand corner of the default skin doesn't show up in some browsers. I believe I figured out why. For reasons unknown to me at the moment, IE6 doesn't seem to like the background-image style. Might I suggest using the more standard <a href=...><img.../></a>? --Joe Sewell 16:50, 11 March 2008 (PDT)
Page move fixup
I took the liberty of correcting the "Add New Post" link herein to edit this page, not the redirect page of Wikichristian:Village pump. Redirects don't work when editing, at least not in the version of MediaWiki being used here. --Joe Sewell 16:51, 11 March 2008 (PDT)
Aquatiki Ventures Forth: Extensions
Hey all, how's everyone doing? (I'm interested to see who will reply to this!) I have a lot of questions, but let me restrict myself to one subject at a time. I assume people who are reading this know what extensions are. You can see which one's we have here on Special:Version. There is a nearly complete list of all available ones at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix. The two that I see as incontestably needed on this wiki are Character Escapes (for easy entry of non-standard or non-Latin characters), and Parser Functions (which everyone uses for templates to be able to have #if-then functionality). What is highly contestable is Semantic MediaWiki. This allows a wiki to join The Semantic Web (Google it, and bask in its brilliance!) Basically, this allows pages to have attributes (like size=400 or FavoriteColour=blue) and allows the description of the links between pages (IsAChildOf or IsParentOf, for the breadcrumb trail). I can see why we might not want to open that can of worms, but I'll let whomever wants voice specific rationales pro and con before I say any more. Thanks for letting me in! ;-) --Aquatiki 04:16, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
- Hi. I'm unsure of the specific pros and cons being a not very technical person, but as a general rule I've noticed that adding extensions almost always makes the wiki more powerful and useful. --Graham grove 14:26, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
- Do you have access, Graham? I can't imagine any debate about ParserFunctions or Character Escapes: they are ubiquitous. We should install those ASAP in order to make templates. SMW is worth reading about/looking over. The kinds of things you can do with it are powerful and amazing. --Aquatiki 15:16, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
- I'm afraid I don't really know how to install add ons. I'm happy to learn if necessary, although I'm sure speaking to Prab about it would be a quicker way to get things done! --Graham grove 13:24, 18 July 2008 (PDT)
- How do we get Prab's attention? I've been talking to him on his talk page, but he seems pretty busy. --Aquatiki 15:49, 18 July 2008 (PDT)
- I installed the extensions you requested. The quickest way to get my attention would be emailing me at tumpati at hotmail dot com. (remove the antispam features) --Prab 02:16, 19 July 2008 (PDT)
Bureaucrats and Sysops
Not sure of how we should go about this. There seem to be a lot of bureaucrats and admins who don't use WikiChristian at all anymore and haven't for months or years. I'm all for just reverting them back to simply normal users. I'd be interested to see what others think, but in the meantime I'm keen on at least removing bureaucrat priveleges - which I'll now do. What do others think? --Graham grove 16:07, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
- Bureaucrat is huge power. I agree that it should be only given with great care and constantly re-evaluated. Adminship, however, is not as vast, so I'll wait to hear from others too. --Aquatiki 16:13, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
- Thanks for your two-cents Robert. I reckon we should sit down together (well, figuratively speaking) with Prab and work out some ground-rules for being a bureaucrat. All of these technical wiki things like bureaucrats and sysops are things which I didn't really know anything about until the last week or two when I decided to read about them - terrible really isn't it; I guess I've always been so focussed on trying to get content onto WikiChristian that I've neglected some other parts. I reckon it is important to work out (even though WikiChristian is ecumenical and regular editting +/- sysop-ship should be open to all users) if there is some sort of theological specifics that we consider to be essential to be bureaucrat of this site. --Graham grove 16:33, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
- If they do ever come back, they can always ask for the bureaucrat right back. If they do become inactive again, we'll just do it all over again. Do you think we should have a certain amount of time we should remove that right? Maybe, if a bureaucrat isn't active or doesn't edit for 6 months, we remove their rights. Thoughts? -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
- I think a b'crat is someone with the hand on the wheel, never missing more than 24 hours without signing off to someone else. A b'crat has to power to give and removed adminship. Admins, however, can have seasons of business, come and go. Six months, without written explanation, sounds right to me for them. --Aquatiki 03:43, 26 July 2008 (PDT)
- If they do ever come back, they can always ask for the bureaucrat right back. If they do become inactive again, we'll just do it all over again. Do you think we should have a certain amount of time we should remove that right? Maybe, if a bureaucrat isn't active or doesn't edit for 6 months, we remove their rights. Thoughts? -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
- Thanks for your two-cents Robert. I reckon we should sit down together (well, figuratively speaking) with Prab and work out some ground-rules for being a bureaucrat. All of these technical wiki things like bureaucrats and sysops are things which I didn't really know anything about until the last week or two when I decided to read about them - terrible really isn't it; I guess I've always been so focussed on trying to get content onto WikiChristian that I've neglected some other parts. I reckon it is important to work out (even though WikiChristian is ecumenical and regular editting +/- sysop-ship should be open to all users) if there is some sort of theological specifics that we consider to be essential to be bureaucrat of this site. --Graham grove 16:33, 25 July 2008 (PDT)
<-- Ah, I see. That reminds me, may I become a bureaucrat? :) I think I've shown I'm active here. If not, that's certainly fine with me. And don't worry, I have bureaucrat experience. ;) -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2008 (PDT)
- I think that there should be no problem you being a bureaucrat, but first I reckon I'd like to chat with Prab about bureaucrat rules etc. Also, would you mind perhaps emailing me and Robert and Prab and letting us know about your walk with Jesus and your Christian background. --Graham grove 05:37, 26 July 2008 (PDT)
- I'd be very happy to. You may do as you wish. Oh, but there is one problem. The last time I checked, Special:Emailuser is not working, and it says it's not even a special page, but it is still a blue link. I won't be able to email unless the situation if fixed. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2008 (PDT)
