|
|
Line 15: |
Line 15: |
| __TOC__ | | __TOC__ |
| | | |
− | ==Bottom indexes==
| |
− | We all like bottom indexes, right? At [[template talk:Bree's religion]] we have a prototype sitting around for the religion pages. My only concern with the Bree's religion index is that I don't understand what "related videos" means. Do we want to implement a bottom index for other types of pages as well? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 23:01, 26 February 2007 (CST)
| |
− | :I ♥ bottom indexes. Last time I tampered with the one for Bree's religion, I took out the "Related videos" thing altogether. I think we should leave it that way unless someone proposes a good way of determining what a "Related video" is and how that would be useful. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 00:02, 27 February 2007 (CST)
| |
− | ::In addition to a "thumbs up" on the bottom indexes, I'd like to say that while I think naming related videos is a good idea, it probably should be done in the body of the page. Rather than vaguely saying "Video X had some info on subject Y," which is what the "related video" concept meant to me, the article should outright say, "In video X, Bree said that her parents were always talking about subject Y." --[[User:Brucker|Brucker]] 10:00, 27 February 2007 (CST)
| |
− | :::Agreed. If it's related, then the article should mention it. I can see how we could use it with location pages -- you wouldn't call it related, but you would say the location appears in: [[Motel Pool]], [[Breakfast In Bed]], etc. Let's go ahead and implement the religion bottom index. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:19, 27 February 2007 (CST)
| |
− | ::::hehe, thanks for adding the semicolon to my ♥ and nice work putting the template back on the religion-related pages. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 15:10, 27 February 2007 (CST)
| |
− | In thinking about a bottom index for locations I tried to create a [[Template_talk:Locations#Some thoughts on locations|list of all the locations.]] Does anyone have input on the two proposed lists? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:37, 2 March 2007 (CST)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Puzzles ==
| |
− |
| |
− | I'd like to always include puzzles in the "Recent Developments" column. Good idea? It could be a way to increase visibility like OIC was talking about at [[Talk:Miss Me? puzzle]]. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 23:11, 26 February 2007 (CST)
| |
− | :Good idea! I second. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 00:02, 27 February 2007 (CST)
| |
− |
| |
− | i third, i know im not a admin, but i contrbute as much as i can. --[[User:Iris2009|TJ Marsh]] 01:22, 27 February 2007 (CST)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::I like the idea, but just a thought: If a new puzzle comes up within the context of the latest video, the puzzle should be listed below the latest video just so the video is at the top of the list. For instance, the latest puzzle is fine, but it we had listed the "semiotics" puzzle, it should have been below [[Jonas Sucks]]. Just my opinion. --[[User:Brucker|Brucker]] 10:03, 27 February 2007 (CST)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::OIC also suggested somewhere that we could use [[Template:Init]] with puzzles and possibly all events. I'm wondering though -- puzzles don't lend themselves well to dates; they're not really events. Should we create a separate main page template for puzzles?--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 00:16, 28 February 2007 (CST)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::::We'd probably be ok just using the date that the puzzle was "posted" (via video, message, wherever it started). And even though the template is called "event", it looked fine when it was used for the puzzle. Maybe we could just add the Init and perhaps link to the forum thread, and keep them optional? If that's complicating things too much, we could just make a separate template. It shouldn't be too difficult since they're similar. I just care about adding Init, and perhaps the forum thread; it doesn't matter so much to me how we get there. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 19:51, 8 March 2007 (CST)
| |
− |
| |
− |
| |
− |
| |
− | == Recent vandalism ==
| |
− |
| |
− | I've noticed that there have been a number of vandalism edits from various IP addresses that simply remove a large portion of content from a page. Here are some examples: [http://www.lonelygirl15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Main_Page/redesign&diff=prev&oldid=34890 1] [http://www.lonelygirl15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Talk:Gemma&diff=prev&oldid=34276 2] [http://www.lonelygirl15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Talk:Aleister_Crowley&diff=prev&oldid=34270 3] [http://www.lonelygirl15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Facility_J&diff=prev&oldid=34264 4] [http://www.lonelygirl15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Talk:Aleister_Crowley&diff=prev&oldid=34282 5] [http://www.lonelygirl15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Member_directory&diff=prev&oldid=34374 6]. Anyway, I think everyone gets the idea. Does anyone know what could be the cause of this? It's not like all the vandalism is coming from one IP address so we can't just block it.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 00:04, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | :Well, really the only way to deal with vandalism is to revert it when it happens and to block offenders. However, I do notice a similarity between all these addresses. They're all anonymous--a WhoIs lookup provides the country, but is unable to process any abuse reports. These addresses are originating from Mexico and Asia, from ISP's that don't release user information. This is just a shot in the dark, but it could all be the same person coming back through proxies. If this is the case, they should get tired of the molasses-slow internet speed that they must be putting up with, and it will all stop when they do. Then again, OIC is not psychic... this is for entertainment purposes only. ;) [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 01:02, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | ::Ok, well this latest streak was weird. Several IPs and a couple of nonsense account names each blanked ''one'' page, but not completely. I banned each for a month since they might not be connected, but I think they are. Should we go back and ban them indefinitely? I'm not sure what's up with the recent wave... might be a vandalbot. I haven't had the change to look up the IPs. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 08:32, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | ==Spam wave==
| |
− | Yikes, any thoughts on how to stop something like that from happening again? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:06, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | :And here I was about to ask you that. :-x
| |
− | :[[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 11:15, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | ::As far as I know there's not even a way to temporarily stop IP addresses from making edits. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:18, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | ::We could look into [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ#Where_do_I_get_the_spam_blacklist_from_and_how_do_I_install_it.3F this]. I think we'd need to get TWJaniak to come back and install it because we can't get into the MediaWiki configuration settings. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:29, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | :::Hm, that might be helpful... so what that blacklist does is prevent edits containing those domains from being done? I guess BK could install it, he's the new Buka, isn't he? [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 11:36, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::::Sounds like a good idea to me. I've encountered this editing Wikipedia when I tried to add a link that was apparently on the blacklist. It just gives you a message saying that the link is on the blacklist and you'll have to remove it before saving.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 11:41, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | :::::Blacklisting links will be halpful, but I don't expect that it will completly solve the problem, my guess it that this was an attack from the fish taco guy, and he will just comeup with a new form of vandalism, I think he's more focused on vandalizing , than getting clicks. Also I checked the location of those IP Adresses using [http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm | Geobytes IP locator] and they were comming from all over the world, so this guy has a major proxy network or know some other way to spoof IPs -[[User:Misty|misty]] 11:57, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | ::::::I think you're grossly overestimating that guy, misty. Using the web through proxies is ''really'' easy to do, he wouldn't have his own "proxy network" or anything like that. This spam was definitely from someone else's spambot, but I guess it doesn't matter who it was anyway, just whether we can find an easy way to control it. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 13:05, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | ::::::: well if you think it was a bot, then maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha CAPTCHA] verification will help, I think wikipedia uses something like that. And even though everyone disagrees, I still think logins should be required -[[User:Misty|misty]] 13:23, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | <br>
| |
− | I moved yesterday's discussion into its own thread. I think we had even more spam this last wave. I was at the computer until very late (studying for finals) and I kept checking periodically. I reverted one spam thingie, but went to sleep soon thereafter and then it started for real! The same thing happened the night before! grrrr! Anyway, I think the blacklisting isn't going to work so well. If you look at the links posted by the spammer, the domains are harmless! There's Harvard (harvard.edu), Stanford (stanford.edu), John Hopkins (jhu.edu), U South Florida (usf.edu), Central Michigan U (cmich.edu), plus a few random domains, like forumhosting.org, jubiiblog.de, blogdiario.com, blogspot.com and more universities. Interestingly, if you click them, you do get redirected to a Samsung ringtone page like the link label said, it just gets routed through the Harvard Computing Society's website or whatever the REAL link is.<br>
| |
− | Instead of blacklisting, I think what Misty suggested (CAPTCHA) will be more effective for us. That, or find another MediaWiki add-on that lets us limit the amount of external links posted in one edit. I can handle the inconvenience of posting one at a time. In the meantime, perhaps we should limit anonymous IPs from editing. Less time wasted blocking them, more time to figure out what to do about it. At this point, spammers make more edits than other well-meaning anonymous users. I'm just suggesting it as a temporary thing while we figure out how to control this intelligently. Whether it's simple to implement, I don't know.<br>
| |
− | [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 11:06, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | :Some (hopefully) helpful links. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anti-spam_Features WikiMedia anti-spam features] covers CAPTCHA, blacklisting, proxy blocking, and lockdown (blocking anonymous users). I think proxy blocking might be a good option. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmEdit MediaWiki ConfirmEdit extension] (captcha), asks you to enter verification codes when inserting external links. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 11:17, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | :'''PS''': I went through all the edits, Jonpro, and it looks like you got them all. *whew* another morning at the wiki...
| |
− |
| |
− | :: I can't figure out how to install these. Can anyone make sense of these extensions? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:55, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::Hmm, [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmEdit Confirm Edit] seems like it would be a good idea to me. By default it uses Captcha on new accounts and external links and that won't be too big of a hassle. As for installing it, the instructions don't look too difficult, but I don't know much about that sort of thing so I'm kind of lost. I'm assuming we would need one of the site administrators or something to install it. The way I see it, the sooner we get this done the better. This spammer is getting really annoying.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 12:15, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::: I'll PM Broken Kid and see if he has the access. If we add captcha and the spam blacklist that should shut the spam down... if it's a human spammer we're just going to have to hope he gets bored. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 12:27, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::::Well, I've read through the mediawiki manual and I understand how to install it. It looks very simple. And there's no reason we can't go through and block almost all those sites he lists. On real wikipedia you wouldn't want to block links to Harvard.edu -- but there's no reason we need them here. We just need someone with FTP access to the site. Hopefully BK will get back to me soon and we'll be able to get it up later tonight. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::::: Mmmkay well... I still haven't heard from BK. I hate to leave things like this overnight, but I don't know what else to do... I'll e-mail Miles tomorrow if I haven't yet heard from BK. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 23:10, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::::::: How about that temporary (overnight) lockdown? I think all you need to do is use the User Rights permission stuff. I don't have access to that though, so I don't know how it works. Maybe it's not as easy as I think it is. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 23:21, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::::::: We can't do the temporary lockdown either. It's an installation setting. The only thing I can do with regards to user rights is make people admins or bots. We could make the LGBot an admin and then have it go through and protect ''everything'' (or at least, I assume the pythonwikipediabots can do that). But, the spammer has the ability to create new pages, so it's not a very useful fix. We can't protect every ''possible'' page. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 00:25, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | :::::::::ah ok. we'll just have to hold out until someone with installation privileges comes to the rescue. we can wait, the spam is controllable, it's just annoying as heck. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 00:46, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | Le sigh. Just when we thought the spamming was easing off... Maybe it kicks in on the weekends when less people are editing. I blocked a few spammers throughout the night, it looks like if you "nip it in the bud", it stops, waits, and then tries again like 30min. later. Otherwise it just keeps going. rawr, want lgpedia anti-spambot extensions. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 17:05, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | :Actually, what you want is simple FTP access. If ''anybody'' had just added "ringtones" to [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anti-spam_features#.24wgSpamRegex $wgSpamRegex] right after the first bot attacked, all the others would have been unable to post - the entire wave would have bounced right off the editing page.
| |
− | :Sure, it'd still have stressed the server, but at least we wouldn't have had to clean up afterwards...
| |
− | :~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 18:01, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | == Performance issues ==
| |
− | I've noticed that the use of alot of templates or included page, can have a big effect on the loading of pages. This can really be seen on list of videos page. does anyone know something that can be be done to improve the performance. -[[User:Misty|misty]] 15:31, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | :Well, I don't think it's templates or transclusion that's causing the problems on [[List of Lonelygirl15 videos]]. No matter how it's organized, with templates or not, the page is simply enormous -- more than 7 times bigger than the Main Page. Other than dumping the videxpand template or really reducing the number of images (or shrinking the size of the actual image files?) there's little we can do. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 10:31, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− |
| |
− | ==Fate of AphidPedia?==
| |
− | Now that OpAphid is no longer, official. should there still be an AphidPedia section or should it be downgraded to Catagory:OpAphid and removed from the left menu? -[[User:Misty|misty]] 02:32, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | :We can still keep the OpAphid page, I'm sure. We have pages for other non-canon/non-official ARGs. I don't really know the structure of all the OpAphid pages, but we ''might'' want to remove the link from the left menu. I'm not really sure on that. The pages definitely need to be updated to indicate that OpAphid is no longer the official ARG if that hasn't been done yet.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 21:43, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | : Oh, I missed this conversation. I just came here to ask the same question. I don't think we should delete OpAphid from the Wiki, but we should be sure to note that it is no longer official. And I think we should take it off the sidebar, although if anyone has a good reason it should stay I would listen. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:25, 17 April 2007 (CDT) 11:15, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− | :: I wasn't suggesting getting rid of OPAphid, I was just wondering if it was still apropriate to call it AphidPedia, or if that should just be merged into the OpAphid article and not be so prominent. When it was the official ARG it made sense for it to have it's own main section, but now it's just another part of the of the extended Breniverse. -[[User:Misty|misty]] 10:31, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | :::I guess my vote would be to keep the AphidPedia -- it's still a good index for the material -- but move it off the sidebar and probably off the Main Page too. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 14:19, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::::I went ahead and removed it from the sidebar and the main page. I didn't make any mention of the scandal, because I think it's best to just move on. We ''really'' need some new stuff to add to the main page. Maybe links to pages about all these new girls?? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 10:55, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
− |
| |
− |
| |
− |
| |
− | == Distribution for LonelyGirl ==
| |
− |
| |
− | I'm interested in talking with someone at LGPedia about additional distribution of Lonely Girl. Can someone please advise me who to contact? I can be reached at lannick@licensinganimal.com Thanks for your help.
| |
− |
| |
− | :Here at the LGPedia we're all just volunteers. We can't help you unfortunately. You need to contact "The Creators" of the series. You can send them a private message at [http://www.lg15.com/forum the forum]. Good luck! --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 15:17, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | | |
| == FYI about the spamming == | | == FYI about the spamming == |
Gotcha -- the whitelist feature is built into MediaWiki, so we can just give him a list of the sites and it's simple. I think we need to whitelist
Can we think of any others? I'll make the request early tomorrow to give people time to think of other sites. --JayHenry 16:38, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Is it possible to create a group for trusted users (perhaps people who have over 200 unreverted edits), and give them exemption from ConfirmEdit and the ability to edit protected pages? -misty 22:00, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
E.g. "0169-JonasAndAlexHugging.jpg". If the picture is modified significantly (e.g. greatly reduced, resized, lightened etc.) then the convention I use is 9999-Description-Modification.xxx, e.g. "...-Cropped.jpg", "...-Stretched.jpg", "...-Detail.jpg" etc. (so as to distinguish it from the original whilst retaining the same name). I would like to put this type of guidance on the Special:Upload page but don't know how. Any thoughts on the above? Psmith 17:26, 10 May 2007 (CDT)