RogueBasin talk:Community Portal

From RogueBasin
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(External community links)
(Archive old discussions to RogueBasin talk:Community Portal/Archive 2)
 
(245 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
<table class="infobox" style="float:right;clear:right; width: 11em; border: 1px solid #93BACB; background:#E0E7EF;font-size:95%; margin:1em; line-height:1.4em;">
 
<table class="infobox" style="float:right;clear:right; width: 11em; border: 1px solid #93BACB; background:#E0E7EF;font-size:95%; margin:1em; line-height:1.4em;">
 
<tr>
 
<tr>
<th style="background:#C2D8EF; padding:.4em; margin:1em; font-size:105%">Archives</th>
+
<th style="background:#C2D8EF; padding:.4em; margin:1em; font-size:105%/j">Archives</th>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
<tr>
 
<tr>
 
<td>
 
<td>
 
* [[/Archive 1|1]]
 
* [[/Archive 1|1]]
 +
* [[/Archive 2|2]]
 
</td>
 
</td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
</table>
 
</table>
  
== Spambots ==
+
==Feedback wanted on article blanking==
 +
I'm an admin here, and mostly what I do is remove spam posts. We don't have any mechanisms here to deal with disputes on article content, so I'm opening this discussion on what to do about a new user who has blanked several articles because they are asserted to be of low quality.
  
There was a small spambot attack recently, dunno how they overrid the spam protection (what is the current spam protection)? I had no luck blocking them via the sysop special pages. Is there any way to delete user accounts?
+
[[User:MisterMentat]] has blanked [[2D Room system architecture]], [[Gunshot Coding]] and [[System Architecture, the strategy to complex implementations]], with an edit summary for the last two of "The article is not well written, and it seems like it's bad spam text generated from a neural network." All three articles have the same original author, [[User:Youngblood]]. I agree that the articles are not of very good quality, but I don't think they are spam or generated from a neural network, and I think they have potential to improve. What do other editors here think? You can see the articles prior to blanking using the "History" tab.
  
--[[User:Slash|Slash]] 01:08, 12 Apr 2007 (CEST)
+
MisterMentat also removed an external link to www.kathekonta.com/rlguide/index.html from [[Articles]], saying "The link is dead, and it points to very suspects sites". I tried the link; it requested that I install Flash, and that might or might not be suspicious, but I chose not to proceed further. Note that I have not made the link clickable here. I'm not inclined to restore this link myself.
  
I think it may be useful to update MediaWiki software to the latest version. The one that's currently installed is so old, the mind boggles. The current version has captchas and other stuff, and it's much easier to revert vandalism. [[User:Grue|Grue]] 10:23, 12 Apr 2007 (CEST)
+
I'll notify MisterMentat and Youngblood about this post.-[[User:Muscles|Muscles]] ([[User talk:Muscles|talk]]) 05:53, 28 September 2019 (CEST)
 
+
IIRC Bj????rn set up the latest version when the server translation was performed? Also, this is plain vandalism, not even spam (deleting '+' and everything after a '&', what use would that have?
+
--[[User:Slash|Slash]] 17:19, 12 Apr 2007 (CEST)
+
:It can't be the latest version. For example when you look at the diff between two revisions, there's no link to edit the revision. This feature was in Wikipedia since I joined it, probably, and that was very long time ago. So, to revert vandalism one has to click three times instead of two, pretty annoying. I don't know, maybe it's configured incorrectly, but it definitely looks very outdated. [[User:Grue|Grue]] 10:52, 13 Apr 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
:It's definitely an old version, the [[Special:Version]] page shows as using version 1.3.9 ''(The 1.3.x line was last updated in November 2005)''. The newest release is 1.10.0 although most modern versions of MediaWiki require PHP5 though ''(since version 1.7)''. The latest version that still supports PHP4 is 1.6.10 available [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download here]. 1.6.10 was released on 20th February 2007. -- [[User:Pucechan|Pucechan]] 01:18, 28 May 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
::THe Wiki is currently running MediaWiki 1.6.10. Hopefully we won't see any more spam attacks. -- Bjorn 09:50 3 Jul 2007
+
 
+
== Remove the news? ==
+
 
+
I was wondering if it is a good idea to keep the news box on the main page. My thoughts:
+
 
+
* We have three main news sites: RGRA, Temple of the Roguelike and the RogueBasin. That's a lot of duplicating.
+
* I feel that the RGRA and Temple of the Roguelike are way more suited to displaying news. I see the RogueBasin as a resource of articles, guides and information about roguelikes.
+
* The news box could be used to display other things. Such as new articles here, articles that we would like to improve and featured roguelikes.
+
 
+
What do people think? [[User:Icey|Icey]] 14:45, 27 May 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
: I agree, both RGRA and TotR seem better places for sources of news (But saying that I do have TotR as a Live Bookmark in Firefox) although I have no problem having a smaller box with the last couple of items. I'd sooner see the space taken with new articles, articles for improvement and featured roguelikes as suggested. -- [[User:Pucechan|Pucechan]] 01:18, 28 May 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
:RGRA and Temple are moderated, which means the news don't appear ASAP. For example both of these mediums haven't covered The Sewer Massacre 1.0 yet (and not for my lack of trying ;)). The main principle behind news is that they are new. A day later is already old news. Imagine if JADE is released, and the news don't appear anywhere for a day. Wiki solves this problem perfectly. [[User:Grue|Grue]] 23:09, 28 May 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
:::::::That's one of the cons of a moderated media :) also, RGRA is moderated, but moderation commonly takes less than 1 hour in my Experience --[[User:Slash|Slash]] 16:35, 4 Jun 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
::That is a good point, I hadn't really thought about the moderation aspect. Perhaps having a slightly different main page design would accommodate having sections for articles and featured items? [[User:Pucechan|Pucechan]] 18:36, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
:::I've made a quick mockup of an idea, so colours and content (especially the top-right links) are just placeholders, this uses the fairly "traditional" block wiki format. The content is just copy-pasted but you get the idea. The news would be for each month (probably in a smaller font). See it here [[User:Pucechan/MainIdea]]. What do people think?
+
 
+
::::I like it a lot. I've expanded the idea a bit: [[User:Icey/MainIdea]]. It's more wikipedia-like, has a little tag line so people know what the RogueBasin is, added the links to the top, added a featured article section, added a bit of colour and changes a few other things. [[User:Icey|Icey]] 02:12, 2 Jun 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
:::::I like the changes you've made, the little splash of colour helps. I prefer your simple set of links rather than my bundle (I didn't really sort them in any way but your way is much nicer). I really like it. [[User:Pucechan|Pucechan]] 11:19, 2 Jun 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
::::::Thanks Pucechan. Let's wait a few days to see if anyone else would like to improve/approve it and then decide what to do from there. [[User:Icey|Icey]] 13:19, 3 Jun 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
:::::::I like it a lot too... I have always thought roguebasin needs a better front page... perhaps changing "Current news" for "News for June 2007"?
+
:::::::Also, it is pretty wordy, some images may help.. probably :P
+
:::::::Thanks! --[[User:Slash|Slash]] 16:35, 4 Jun 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
:::::::: Images would be good, but uploading images is disabled :P A little cropped screenshot of a roguelike would be nice to go with the description. Like [http://www.reloaded.org/images/games/reviews/66/review07.png this] or [http://www.gamesetwatch.com/atplay/adom-8.gif this]. [[User:Icey|Icey]] 20:14, 7 Jun 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
::::::::: I have enabled uploads for a trial period. [[User:Bjorn|Bjorn]] 09:50, 3 Jul 2007 (CEST)
+
 
+
== External community links ==
+
 
+
One thing I think is missing from the main page is a list of external community links. The existing [[Roguelike_Links]] doesn't have [[Temple of the Roguelike]], [[@ Play]] and other current resources like forums for various roguelike games listed (and dare I say it [[Ascii Dreams]] ;) )
+
 
+
Are people happy for me to tidy up the Links section, to include the above, a 'Press' section within Links for listing where external media have talked about roguelike games, and a Forums section within Links for listing the various game specific web forums such as [http://angband.oook.cz/forum the Angband forums], Angband variant web forums and others (Live Journal, other variants and so on)? I'd like to see more ways of people getting in touch with fellow roguelike players/developers listed somewhere convenient...
+
 
+
: That's an excellent idea. Perhaps we could use [[Links]] as a comprehensive list and then do a cut down version for the main page?
+
 
+
: Perhaps the Links page could have a Roguelike Blog section (or a name like that) for your site and others like [http://doryen.blogspot.com/] [http://kaduria.blogspot.com/]
+
 
+
: [[User:Icey|Icey]] 18:52, 5 September 2007 (CEST)
+

Latest revision as of 06:00, 28 September 2019


Archives

[edit] Feedback wanted on article blanking

I'm an admin here, and mostly what I do is remove spam posts. We don't have any mechanisms here to deal with disputes on article content, so I'm opening this discussion on what to do about a new user who has blanked several articles because they are asserted to be of low quality.

User:MisterMentat has blanked 2D Room system architecture, Gunshot Coding and System Architecture, the strategy to complex implementations, with an edit summary for the last two of "The article is not well written, and it seems like it's bad spam text generated from a neural network." All three articles have the same original author, User:Youngblood. I agree that the articles are not of very good quality, but I don't think they are spam or generated from a neural network, and I think they have potential to improve. What do other editors here think? You can see the articles prior to blanking using the "History" tab.

MisterMentat also removed an external link to www.kathekonta.com/rlguide/index.html from Articles, saying "The link is dead, and it points to very suspects sites". I tried the link; it requested that I install Flash, and that might or might not be suspicious, but I chose not to proceed further. Note that I have not made the link clickable here. I'm not inclined to restore this link myself.

I'll notify MisterMentat and Youngblood about this post.-Muscles (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2019 (CEST)

Personal tools