To my surprise, a revert war has erupted on the Sciforums Encyclopedia !!!

On the real Wiki there are actually mods , and sometimes a thread is closed for a period, while the contributing hotheads cool down !!

I don´t mind, that the members contribute to the personal information on other members profiles , but how about a few guidelines :

Only max 3-4 contributions from other members - with quotes from former threads on Scifo ........ kept in a humourous way , but without malign insults !!

An appointed mod ( allmighty overseer :cool: ) with the power to lock the threads/profiles for a while , while the vandalizing members cool down .........
Eventually with the power of giving warnings/infractions/temporary bans to the most hotheaded .........

Just an idea ..... what are your thoughts on this subject ??

An appointed mod ( allmighty overseer :cool: ) with the power to lock the threads/profiles for a while , while the vandalizing members cool down .........
Eventually with the power of giving warnings/infractions/temporary bans to the most hotheaded .........

Like wikiadmin (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/User:Wikiadmin)?

I would say that it would be not allowed for members to delete anything on the page about them.

There should be NO pages about members.

That would suck.

(Q) is a real character. He thinks you cannot make pages on members because that could lead to hurt feelings. He doesn't mind insulting moderators though if he does it himself.

(Q) is a real character. He thinks you cannot make pages on members because that could lead to hurt feelings. He doesn't mind insulting moderators though if he does it himself.

Spurious feels the wiki is a place to insult people behind their backs since he doesn't have the guts to do so in front of them.

And since he cannot be trusted to use wiki as it was intended, then clearly the adults must take away his toys.

Nice that you can read my mind. Shame I didn't need to read yours to know you think I am a stupid asshole.

Nice that you can read my mind. Shame I didn't need to read yours to know you think I am a stupid asshole.

I never once thought that.

But, I would be interested to know from you, or anyone else, what you think the purpose would be to post pages of members on wiki? And, what is the purpose of not allowing those members to delete their own pages if they wished to do so?

Read the threads on the topic.

I did, and still found no reason to have them other than for puerile activities. Is that why you want them?

Your problem is probably that you are you. Hence you cannot see anything passed your gigantic blinds. You are such a sour grape they can't even make vinegar out of you.

That would suck.

Why?

I would say that it would be not allowed for members to delete anything on the page about them.
Well, members should have at least some say about what goes on their pages. I say feel free to put anything on a page about the member as a poster on SciForums, with the idea that the page should accurately represents how that member is seen by the SF community in general, but give them the final say about anything related to their personal life or life outside the forum.

Why?
Because the encyclopedia reflects sciforums culture, and the members are part of that culture.

If you want a good old boring wiki you might as well just have a link to the real wikipedia.

Your problem is probably that you are you. Hence you cannot see anything passed your gigantic blinds. You are such a sour grape they can't even make vinegar out of you.

So, essentially you have no argument in favor of having pages on members here other than to carry out childish activities. That's what I thought.

And you have clearly missed the point entirely of having a sciwiki, if you actually believe I'm just being a sour grape.

BTW, congratulations on insulting me to my virtual face, so to speak.

Now, can we move past your penchant for adolescent behavior and get to what sciwiki was intended?

So, essentially you have no argument in favor of having pages on members here other than to carry out childish activities. That's what I thought.

And you have clearly missed the point entirely of having a sciwiki, if you actually believe I'm just being a sour grape.

BTW, congratulations on insulting me to my virtual face, so to speak.

Now, can we move past your penchant for adolescent behavior and get to what sciwiki was intended?

fuck off troll.

Read the thread in the moderator forum.

What do you mean? there are plenty of serious articles.

I think the biggest problem is that some members see the encyclopedia as their Myspace. It isn't.

GW Bush is not allowed to dictate what is on the GW Bush page on wikipedia. Neither should any member be able to dictate what is on the page about them.

There is a user page that can act as a 'myspace' page.

There are some extreme statements but they will be ironed out over time. However, letting users dictate what they want on their own page is just plain ridiculous.

The other problem here is that certain users like lixluke have had a shitty posting history on sciforums. It is extremely easy to find ridiculous statements with proper references because that is their modus operandi. By dictating the corresponding page on the encyclopedia they are in fact denying responsibility for their contributions to sciforums: a revisionist history.

And they are allowed to do that on their User page. Of course the current cool skill page is a bit extreme, but it is a reflection of his contributions. Nobody that knows him will be surprised by it.

I just think that we are setting the wrong precedent if we let users dictate the content of one specific page. In fact I consider it to be unethical to delete contributions to the spuriousmonkey page for myself. Someone else will come along and do it for me if the edit is unwarranted.

The encyclopedia has only been up a few days. You can't expect the content to be fully matured in that timeframe. It needs lots of editors and edits before that is possible.

Recent research has shown that the quality of a wikipedia page goes up when there are many editors and edits. Pages under control of a single editor can't reach that quality.

Giving members the sole access to a specific page effectively eliminates the possibility for quality.

This problem needs to be projected on a long term time scale.

Revert wars on the encyclopedia are a negative form of a flamewar. Positive flamewars are good for our encyclopedia. They construct rather than constrict. The essence of sciforums.

See for instance this:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Flamewar_Guidelines

Because the encyclopedia reflects sciforums culture, and the members are part of that culture.

Then, clearly you have no idea as to an encyclopedia's purpose.

If you want a good old boring wiki you might as well just have a link to the real wikipedia.

And if I wanted to see children at play, I'd go the playground.

There is nothing wrong with putting together interesting articles based on what has been written in these forums, but that's not what's happening, is it? What IS happening is that members here are taking advantage of the wiki and using it for their own personal and juvenile behavior.

So, if you kiddies can't learn how to use grown-up tools, then they must be taken away.

No it is not. That is what the userpage is for.

It is unethical for the subject to delete the work of others on the proper page dealing with the subject.

If there is a case of injustice it will be dealt with by other users eventually.

...

There is nothing wrong with putting together interesting articles based on what has been written in these forums, but that's not what's happening, is it?

You clearly havent read the wiki.

fuck off troll.

Thank you for making my point more succinctly.

You clearly havent read the wiki.

No, you clearly don't know how to use it.

No, you clearly don't know how to use it.
Another sign that you dont know what you're talking about.

Here, try actually reading it.
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/

Another sign that you dont know what you're talking about.

Here, try actually reading it.
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/

Funny, nowhere does it say to act like an immature idiot. But, perhaps you've muddled this statement to be a license to act like an immature idiot:

"and its up to you to choose what is appropriate"

... and of course, this statement completely alludes you:

"Nip vandalism in the bud or be positive and add something!"

Funny, nowhere does it say to act like an immature idiot. But, perhaps you've muddled this statement to be a license to act like an immature idiot:

"and its up to you to choose what is appropriate"

... and of course, this statement completely alludes you:

"Nip vandalism in the bud or be positive and add something!"

You do realise the front page is based on contributions from several members dont you?

You do realise the front page is based on contributions from several members dont you?

So what?

And you still haven't given a single good reason why we need pages on members?

So what?

And you still haven't given a single good reason why we need pages on members?
I gave you a reason. If you dont agree with it thats your problem, not mine.

Besides, the members pages are but a fraction of what we've added on there.

"Nip vandalism in the bud or be positive and add something!"

That was written by Pete and spuriousmonkey. Pete did the first part. I did the last part.

I gave you a reason. If you dont agree with it thats your problem, not mine.

I don't agree with it, since it prescribes no rationale. That fact that you don't understand the concept of an encyclopedia's purpose in no way should reflect anyone else's.

That was written by Pete and spuriousmonkey. Pete did the first part. I did the last part.

Then, you are a hypocrite.

I don't agree with it, since it prescribes no rationale. That fact that you don't understand the concept of an encyclopedia's purpose in no way should reflect anyone else's.
And yet you still don't understand what a wiki is. Again and again - your problem.

And yet you still don't understand what a wiki is. Again and again - your problem.

I think we both understand what a 'wiki' is by definition. But, I don't think you understand the difference between childish and adult behavior.

An adult, for example, wouldn't see the purpose in having pages on members there where it would be reasonable to assume adolescents, like yourself, would have access to it and abuse it. And that is exactly what is happening.

Back to you.

No, I can understand the difference. I can see you are a cry baby.

poor guy isnt getting his way.
maybe he should get a lolly.

No, I can understand the difference. I can see you are a cry baby.

You do appear to understand the difference and are acting accordingly, as expected.

You do appear to understand the difference and are acting accordingly, as expected.

I quite understand that a moderator like you who calls another moderator a dickhead in the moderator forum is childish.

I quite understand that a moderator like you who calls another moderator a dickhead in the moderator forum is childish.

I can stand up to you and tell you what I think about you to your virtual face, so to speak. I won't sneak around posting it under your wiki page nor will I air it out in public, as you just did.

Again, your adolescent behavior behooves you.

I never wrote anything on your wikipage. I turned a word into a link.

Of course you wouldn't do anything sneaky as calling me dickhead, fuck you, fuckwit and the likes on a forum hidden for most. Oh wait you did.

I waited a few days..and no apology.

Now, can we move past your penchant for adolescent behavior and get to what sciwiki was intended?

Well, since you seem to be the expert on what the wiki was created for, why don't you share that knowledge?

Nah. Don't bother. You're talking out of your ass.

You might be interested to know that the wiki was created so as to write about sciforums culture. It wasn't intended to be some kind of new wikipedia. It was to be for sciforums, about sciforums.
And, you might be surprised to learn that sciforums is its users.
Hence, pages on individual users are a necessity if we wish to stay true to the original motivation for the creation of the sciwiki.


What I find funny is that you'd be arguing a completely different stance if you'd thought to create an article insulting some woo woo or woo woo's in general before a page was made about you and you threw a big stink about it.

Do you ever look in the mirror?

I can stand up to you and tell you what I think about you to your virtual face, so to speak. I won't sneak around posting it under your wiki page nor will I air it out in public, as you just did.

Again, your adolescent behavior behooves you.

kind of like following ToR around and trolling her threads?
you are such a winner, dude.

I never wrote anything on your wikipage. I turned a word into a link.

Yes, you contributed to the adolescence. Thanks for that.

Of course you wouldn't do anything sneaky as calling me dickhead, fuck you, fuckwit and the likes on a forum hidden for most. Oh wait you did.

One doesn't tear one a new asshole in front of everyone else, but if that's your preference, then I'll consider it in the future.

I waited a few days..and no apology.

I received no apology from you for your 'contribution.'

You might be interested to know that the wiki was created so as to write about sciforums culture.

So, your definition of 'culture' is stupidity? Little wonder.

"pastafarian" is a pun.

puns are the lowest form of humor.
fucktwit.

There is no need to argue with you infants. If you can't act like adults, then do so on this forum where everyone can tell you such, don't run off to the wiki to throw your tantrums.

Done here.

There is no need to argue with you infants. If you can't act like adults, then do so on this forum where everyone can tell you such, don't run off to the wiki to throw your tantrums.

Done here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHtyA0qTnTE

So, your definition of 'culture' is stupidity? Little wonder.

You're so one dimensional, just like your 'enemies' the Christians.

Stupidity is an aspect of culture, most certainly. And, it can't be denied that you add to this aspect of the culture in various of your activities, as do we all.

What's really stupid is that you think you're somehow above it all.

Seriously, guy. Look in the mirror from time to time.

can someone revert my user page from what lixluke did to it?
or better yet tell me how cause i will need the info.

Click on "history", then click on the version you want to revert, then press "edit", then "save page".

can someone revert my user page from what lixluke did to it?
or better yet tell me how cause i will need the info.

sorry guy...i wouldnt want to "vandalize" it.
:p

Yeah, better delete it instead otherwise people will throw their toys out the pram.

Yeah, better delete it instead otherwise people will throw their toys out the pram.

change your avatar, asshat.

change your avatar, asshat.

Done.

Click on "history", then click on the version you want to revert, then press "edit", then "save page".
well you click on the DATE of the page you want.

thanks nick.

sorry guy...i wouldnt want to "vandalize" it.
:p
Noooooo . . . not TDI, never.:rolleyes:

i've noticed nobody has commented in the following thread:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64258

it's obvious we need to do something here people, we can't keep infighting like this.

WE NEED A SOLUTION.

Guys,guys,guys................
I can´t turn my back on you for a few hours ........3 pages of posts .....
Anyway , I am glad the mods have their own forum - I did suggest that, in another thread some time ago .......people here are very different and tensions will allways be there , however - even between mods ...........

I don´t agree with Q about not having profiles of members - sciforum IS the members and their posts ..

However Q does have a point ..... sometimes people DO behave childish .......
to some extent it should be allowed , because Sciforum is our oasis in an everyday hard life ...... we should be allowed to blow off a little steam here ........

But sometimes we goes over the borderline ......it is easy to make somebody else upset ............
Perhaps we should think twice before we post something insulting in such a personal thing as somebodies profile ..............
The strong members here, that have no problems profiling themselves here on Scifo , should sometimes remember , that the more anonymous members here
could be upset about things - which the strong members would only see as a good joke , if somebody had written it in their profile ..........

Only do to others what you want to be done to yourself , is sometimes NOT enough - some people have lower selfesteem , than others , and are therefore more touchy ..........not that they behave nicely themselves , when they try to revenge themselves :p

Anyway , how about a truce / ceasefire ????

Do we need a mod - yes or no ??

Nickelodeon - where´s your tooth ?? :confused:

You can't handle the tooth.

You can't handle the tooth.

I can handle the truth as well as the tooth .......:p
Seriously , what is the story about your decaying toothavatar ?

Seriously , what is the story .....
Sorry I cant be serious, I'm just a "childish adolescent troll".

You were mocking my beautiful tooth avatar. Admit it. I am the center of the universe.

Give us this day our daily dose.

Amen.

http://sciforums.*******************/logo8.png

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4891/nonsense1fm3.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4891/nonsense1fm3.jpg

get on your hamachi, fucktard.

All this drama reminds me of P.G . Wodehouse:

"Each, in fact, was to the other, a perpetual freak show, with no charge for admission".

:shrug:

In answer to the title of the thread, clearly we do need moderation for sciwiki.

Some people posting to it obviously can't control their childish immaturity without somebody else doing it for them. This has flow-on effects of the kind we've seen in this thread and elsewhere, with members bickering with each other rather than contributing anything useful to either the forum or the encyclopedia.

The sooner we institute some moderation on the encyclopedia the better.

It is important to have pages about members in the wiki about a site that is made up of members. Some claim that members are bias towards their own articles, and should not be allowed to edit them. Others claim that nobody has the right to say members are bias towards their own articles. It is pure psycho fascism to claim that members do not have the right to edit their own articles.

Furthermore, members should have the right to have final say iregarding anything on the wiki that pertains to them. Mainly becase any content about a member affects the member more than anybody. Therefore, that member should have 100% courtesy in making decisions about anything pertaining to him within the wiki.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as positive flamewar. Come claim the encclopedia should be serious, while others want it to be an uncyclopedia of nonsense.

I suggest Lixluke is perma-banned from the wiki. Because it feels right.

I suggest Lixluke is perma-banned from the wiki. Because it feels right.
i second the motion.


Furthermore, members should have the right to have final say iregarding anything on the wiki that pertains to them.
what an absoluely brilliant idea!
i wonder why lixluke is the one to mention it?

i second the motion.
Aye.

That is because you are members of a well known group of vandals. You even put it in your communist avatar. Last time you had goats in your avatar. Perhaps you should be banned.

That is because you are members of a well known group of vandals. You even put it in your communist avatar. Last time you had goats in your avatar. Perhaps you should be banned.
so says the man that deletes the truth from sciwki cause it bruises his fragile ego.