Talk:Main Page

From Wikireligion

Revision as of 04:39, 7 June 2007 by Luiza Smiche (Talk | contribs)

Talk:Main Page/Archive 1

Contents

voting

Here is a list of things we are to vote for or against.

  1. Wikireligion will have no Arbcom or council.
  2. Admins may do what they see fit.
  3. Members are to cut off comunications with people who are here to harm the encyclopedia.
  4. There is not to be a Esperanza or any group that has a leadership.
  5. In the first year it will take 50% support votes to become a sysop.
  6. After this it will take 75.
  7. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules will be in effect here.
This is just a basic list of things. I am sure I will come up with more and so will others. Vote below the line.
Yeah, um, I thought you were letting RyGuy run this place. And each of these should be voted on separately, no?? Seven of nine 17:22, 9 March 2007 (EST)
No, they don't have to. ForestH2 09:54, 12 March 2007 (EST)
  • Support Number 3 does include Seven of nine. That's excatly what he is. I highly suggest we block him indefinite. He is the rudest person I've ever met. I disagree with Number 1. I have even thought about starting an ArbCom case or something on Seven of nine. ForestH2 19:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)
And rudeness is now a reason for indefinite blocking. Lovely. See how quickly you revert back to your old ways...reminds me of Wikikids....unbelievable. Seven of nine 20:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Well, yeah of course. If your rude your blocked. And you are. ForestH2 20:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Well, you just removed my own comments from my own talk page, so perhaps you should be blocked as well. Seven of nine 20:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Yeah, because their rude and there against policy. You know when an admin shows up, they have every right to block you. ForestH2 20:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)
("they're" not "their") And how is calling something "silly" being rude. It is my opinion. You don't have to agree, but that doesn't make it rude. Grow up, dude. Seven of nine 20:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
It's not recent silliness, it's people accusing you of being rude. ForestH2 20:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)
  • Support Everything but Number 1. In some cases, there may need to be an ArbCom. ForestH2 09:54, 12 March 2007 (EST)
    • uh, #1 already says there won't be an ArbCom. --Seven of nine 21:48, 13 March 2007 (EST)
  • Support even though it won't make the slightest bit of difference. This policy would solve your problems, but unfortunately you all seem to find ways to ignore common sense and just go ahead and start arguing again. In a small project where you simply do not have the resources to deal with disruptive users, anybody that refuses to change is normally banned, instantly, with no official rulings. It's just done by a single admin, very little discussion and no quoting policies. You're in an impossible situation now, as currently almost the entire community is causing disruption. And as soon as anyone actually does the right thing, you all moan at them because there isn't a specific paragraph in the policy that authorises the use of common sense in a situation. Archer7 13:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)
FWIW, I agree with Archer. Perhaps it is just best for folks to start creating articles rather than wrangle over policy minutiae. --Qwerty 14:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)
  • Support All I agree with all of these suggestions, and unless anyone objects, I will put them into effect. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 March 2007 (EST)
Okay. The consensus is to have these things. --Sir James Paul 11:37, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Support everything but ArbCom, I must agree :(. It's actually sometimes kinda useful. And Esperanza might be a somewhat help if there was no leader. -- LuizaSmiche  (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Software updates

If anyone has any software updates or features they request please let me know and I will deal with it. ForestH2 09:43, 12 March 2007 (EST)

Religious community?

I noticed a new header on the Main page labeling wikireligion as a "A free religious encyclopedia and community". What is meant by "religious community" here? While I'd love to help build a "high quality encyclopedia on religion and philosophy", I have little desire to join a "religious community". What is this place? Qwerty 13:13, 17 March 2007 (EST)

I took that part out. I found that to be a little odd also. Peace:) --Sir James Paul 17:31, 17 March 2007 (EST)

This place is really thriving now. Hold on to your hats! ;) Seven of nine 01:15, 19 March 2007 (EST)

If you really want to make this place thrive, create articles, edit them etc. like Qwerty does. ForestH2 09:48, 19 March 2007 (EST)

Templates

It seems to be a bit weird everybody is creating templates here. Shouldn't we be creating articles? BTW, the templates don't help us much. ForestH2 22:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I see what you mean, Forest. But as for me, I'm more of a maintenance person, not so much an article writer. So I just took it upon myself to create a few basic templates. -- P.B. Pilhet 22:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
But your an admin, according to your first RFA, on other religious wiki's or so I say? Aren't you? Templates are fine. Now that were in the top forty wikis for this week, will get more views. We are number 14. ForestH2 22:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, in the "about me" section on my userpage I have links to the three other wiki's I administrate: WikiChristian, Compass Wiki (which I seriously cleaned up), and the CKB. And cool, I'm glad to be a part of such a successful project! -- P.B. Pilhet 22:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm also more of a maintinence person too, I just happen to ne a bit busy this week. You'll like a main page animation I'm working on here on my computer when I upload it. Trust me, animations are very, very hard to perfect. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Bias?

Why are there links to Christianity and Buddhism in the sidebar, but not Islam or Judaism? Or any of the other world religions? (not to mention, those links don't even provide any information). Is there a bias here? Oh, and I'm impressed at how much this site has grown - its much more important to vote yourselves as admins and create templates that actually add content. Seven of nine 14:47, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

No, there isn't any Bias, it's just that nobody is really active right now, and the people that are active are better at performing small tasks than really adding articles. To be honest, I agree with you about the RfA part. I mean, for one, most of us are admins, and two, we've gone through the process 3 times already. I am uncertain why that is happening. I am working on fixing that currently. You may be a bit rude (no offense) at times, but you always seem to have good points. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Now take a look. Better? I'll add anything possible when I can. -- RyGuy (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Quality not Quantity

Please do not create new articles here, unless they are high quality, until are current ones are at least good articles. We will have voting on what articles are good on this talkpage. Have a nice week everyone.--Sir James Paul 11:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Voting on Good Article Status

If there is a article that you feel is worthy to be considered good (in comparisson of the other articles) please nominate it below the line. You can nominate more than one. The nominator can vote for his own nominations. Thanks. --Sir James Paul 11:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Islam

Well, this article I feel is one of the best(besides formatting). It probably has the most information in it than any of the other articles.--Sir James Paul 11:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Support As nominator.--Sir James Paul 11:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Support interesting religion (all are, really.) --Luiza Smiche 21:56, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Support ForestH2 22:01, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Edit counters

Do you think we need edit counters? ForestH2 19:26, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://editthis.info/wikireligion/Talk:Main_Page"
Personal tools