CWCki talk:Community Portal

From CWCki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

are there any other pages that need adding? --Cogsdev 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Maybe either a general user decision area or a general talk area? --Eniggy 04:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Eniggy, there should be a general discussion area for users to discuss general topics on Chrissy boy and his latest exploits. Please Coggy, make this a reality! --Chris_Pickles 23:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

this thing was a failure, i suggest merging everything back EXCEPT for speculation. Clydec 12:03, 3 October 2010 (PDT)

Also I demand a new admin besides champ because he's not here a lot now. Clydec 22:03, 3 October 2010 (PDT)
Just someone who's on here a lot or someone with web editing experience? You could see if someone like Anonymax would do it, he does tons of editing on here everyday. --Caboose -1 22:33, 3 October 2010 (PDT)
i don't think web editing is going to help in this position. i'd nominate anonymax too Clydec 22:34, 3 October 2010 (PDT)
I vote merge too. And if you guys need help I'll provide some assistance.--Wintermute 20:54, 4 October 2010 (PDT)
I also vote for merge. Speculation overflowed while the other sections barely had anything on them.--trombonista 21:12, 9 October 2010 (PDT)
I agree merge,also Clyde should be admin.--EpicBeta 21:49, 12 October 2010 (PDT)

Serious discussion overhauling this portal

Policy/Suggestions/General and that's it. (Policy would have both editing policy and community policy) -- Clyde 08:53, 2 November 2010 (PDT)


  • question, where should sightings be put under? CFA 20:55, 19 December 2010 (PST)CFA

Need new URL to Offshore CWCki

The link is dead. Can someone fix that? Masterspark 17:49, 14 January 2011 (PST)

The Offshore CWCki has been dead, was there a reason? Barachulove 21:41, 11 February 2011 (PST)

Speculation page

To prevent what happened here, can we have the speculation page back? Offshore cwcki failed, and I know a lot of higher-ups dislike speculation, but at least if we had that page back it would be contained to one area. --Ronichu 05:06, 2 May 2011 (PDT)

New forum location

forum link should be

tru dat. Eamoo 03:10, 5 January 2012 (PST)


TIME TO CHANGE THE FORUM LINK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimz (talkcontribs)

Time for you to stop typing in caps and to sign your shit. --Anonymax 07:54, 9 January 2012 (PST)

Quality portal?

Crazy idea I'm just throwing out here, how about a portal to discuss article quality issues? People bitch about the quality of articles, why not give them a place to bring their concerns so we can address them? Like I said, just a crazy idea I have and I'd like some feedback first.--Champthom 08:15, 10 January 2012 (PST)

well we have the forums and the discussion pages for each article, we could create a wiki for discussion .. yo dawg i heard you like to wiki so i made a wiki about your wiki so you can discuss what you discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimz (talkcontribs)
Crazy idea - why doesn't Slimz stop removing signature messages from his talk page and ACTUALLY START TO FUCKING USE THEM. --Anonymax 12:43, 10 January 2012 (PST)
Seconding. Both Champ's idea and Anonymax's. Not you though Slimes. You just need a doctor. Seriously though, this wiki does need a serious quality overhaul, and this would be a valuable tool in achieving those ends. --Old meme 13:03, 10 January 2012 (PST)

Forum link

Is the forum dead? --Shutupman 04:11, 8 November 2012 (PST)

It certainly looks that way. It appears to have been taken down either by an admin or due to a terms of service violation. The latter is certainly possible; maybe someone reported the forum to Forumer? This is merely speculation on my part; what actually happened remains to be seen. CWCThinker 07:54, 8 November 2012 (PST)

Champ wrote on another page that the forum was TOSed. No word that I'm aware of of what's going to happen next. Holdek 13:00, 8 November 2012 (PST) Nevermind...I looked at his comment again and he didn't say that. Must have got it mixed up with something else. I have no idea why the forum is down. My apologies. Holdek 14:08, 8 November 2012 (PST
I wonder if Chris reported it? I think new forum should be made, however the new forum provider's TOS should be evaluated to make sure that a Cwcki forum isn't breaking any of thate provider's rules. That way this won't happen again. Taurine 13:43, 8 November 2012 (PST)
Nevermind...I looked at his comment again and he didn't say that. Must have got it mixed up with something else. I have no idea why the forum is down. My apologies. Holdek 14:08, 8 November 2012 (PST)
If it was TOS'd, it was probably someone who was recently banned. If you look at their TOS, the forum wasn't actually in breach of them, so it will have been a misunderstanding. It'll likely be possible that we can recover the forum. If not, I don't think it's a big loss. Forumer really isn't handling this very professionally, so something like this was inevitable. It might just be smarter to change to another provider, even if the forum CAN be recovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freecell (talkcontribs) 16:41, 8 November 2012 (PST)
I agree. At this point I wouldn't risk going with forumer again. At least the most important information that came from the forums was put onto the CWCki. So like you said, no big loss. Taurine 16:55, 8 November 2012 (PST)
On /cwc/, someone said someone else was butthurt about being banned and reported it to Forumer, if that helps. Grandma Nazi 17:53, 8 November 2012 (PST)
Zero surprise there. Those guys and their imaginary war. Taurine 18:14, 8 November 2012 (PST)

Editing Closed

I think your decision to close editing to all but a few articles was a good choice for the moment. I too have noticed the large volume of account creation and it does look like something malicious may be on the horizon. I don't agree with keeping these articles locked down forever though (or unlocked on request), it just creates bureaucracy that limits myself and others from editing/correcting as we research. It hampers my flow, yo. Until the motive behind the account creations is discovered though, limiting the area of attack is still a wise choice. --Skullhat 06:30, 29 January 2013 (PST)

Holy SHIT there is a swath of new accounts again. What the hell is going on? BeefCurtains 10:15, 23 February 2013 (PST)

Ah. That explains why I've not been able to edit anything as of late. What's going on with all these new accounts, I wonder? --Clockwork Hydra 16:31, 27 February 2013 (PST)

Someone's probably planning a big vandalism attack. Would it be possible to enable editing for, say, accounts with over 10 edits already or something? Eamoo 09:59, 1 March 2013 (PST)

The Cwcki is Dying

I will be keeping a log of all the times I experience issues with accessing the Cwcki as this is beginning to happen more and more frequently.

~3:30 PM EST March 15th, 2013 - NOTES: Temporary down time, lasting 1-3 minutes with ~5-10 minute up time. Very sluggish response, even worse than usual. This is not my connection, browser reports that server is failing to send data.

Sorry Cogs/Champ, but until someone sheds a little bit of light upon what's going on here/what your team plans to do about the user creation spam or whatever is causing these issues, I'm not donating. --Skullhat 12:47, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

Spam inserted into header

"buy levitra germany where to buy viagra from buy dapoxetine priligy buy phentermine 30 mg" and so many more lines of the like has been slipped into the header, above "The CWCki needs help! Please consider clicking the tugboat to make a donation." It's hidden normally, but viewing page source or viewing the page without scripting enabled (thanks again, noscript!) shows it clear as day. Zekedms 03:59, 23 May 2013 (PDT)


you really know how to keep this tugboat sailing ;)

Remerging the portals

Maybe it'd make sense at this point to just have one community portal instead of various sub-portals (Policy, Technical, etc.)? --Champthom (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. There's less activity and it's harder to focus on what we want to do here with these scattered discussion areas. --Holdek (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Kiwi Farms

Could someone who could edit this page edit the link to the former CWCki Forums to link to the Kiwi Farms (or, if that's no longer applicable, remove it entirely)?

-Windows OS (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Spam accounts

We should add a captcha to the user creation page as well as ad a script that disallows harmful edits, like what wikipedia has. Homsar (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that spammers are still easily able to register, and they come in hordes whenever account registration is opened temporarily. I would suggest, instead of lowering the drawbridge every so often, setting up a Request Account form, similarly to how CreationWiki protects itself against fedora-tippers. Manually approving aspiring Christorians who submit a request would avoid the headhunting that comes every registration cycle. ChanOfTartary (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Here's my old list of suggestions ( As someone who has had to wait for the "drawbridge" I second the request account feature. As for the content of the request form I feel like a "short answer" section requiring something like a 100 word minimum response could work to fight automatic requests by bots who might be reconfigured around the parameters. I don't know if any of this is possible but I feel the "drawbridge approach" limits the wiki's growth. Finnegan (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I support adopting ConfirmAccount, but also UserMerge to merge all the blocked spam accounts into one, providing a true and honest editor count. --Little Owl (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, so that is what CreationWiki's system is called. Finnegan's suggestion could easily be incorporated instead of the biography and credentials: asking some basis Christorical facts that could be answered easily by anyone who read the 'New? Start here!' core articles would filter out the Croatian loan sharks. On this point, if we have a manual approval process like this, the reCaptcha for creating new articles would probably be redundant and could be removed. (It is rather annoying that, because I block Google's JavaScript [upon which reCaptcha depends] for privacy reasons, I am unable to create articles.) A CWCensus of active, dormant and malicious editors would indeed be interesting to see. ChanOfTartary (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
With a ConfirmAccount system, you only need to use the Captcha at the account request stage. According to this page, you can choose to use the QuestyCaptcha, which brings the verification thing in-house. --Little Owl (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)