lialletozel Community Portal includes discussion about the project.
Is en-SW really a direct successor for Scouting Wikia? If yes, why isn't it completely run down and the users more efficiently redirected here? Has all the material been transferred here? --ZeiP 01:58, 11 September 2007 (CEST)
- Yes it has been all transferred here, and yes it is a successor for Scouting Wikia, or, well, at least, in my mind. But I haven't completely run down the scouting wikia because I thought as, as long as it wasn't "my" wiki and as I don't know the guy who created it, I couldn't blank all pages ... But maybe it would be a good idea to do so. I'm not sure. Akela - yaw yaoooo ! 05:06, 11 September 2007 (CEST)
- Well, I wouldn't even put any notices there if it was someone else's, but try to contact the owner instead. Oh well. --ZeiP 00:06, 12 September 2007 (CEST)
- If my memory's good we tried, but he didn't answer. We tried to contact BigDT too, the guy who tried to wake it up : he logged in here but seemed to have changed is mind as he's the owner of the http://www.scoutpedia.com url, which he recently made a redirect to en:wikipedia's scouting portal. Akela - yaw yaoooo ! 00:12, 12 September 2007 (CEST)
There are currently quite many infinite blocks. I'm quite sure none of those actually need to infinite â the spammers don't probably even have the same IP any more, they've changed it a million times already for the blocks created on June. Some of the blocks even block creation of accounts!
So, we need to think about spam control. Spam control with the amount of spam we currently have here would be relatively easy if we had enough activity â however in the current situation in which most of the entries on Special:Recentchanges are blocks, deletions and reverts of spam, it just doesn't work.
We can't keep on giving those infinite blocks. Instead we need to figure out a decent duration after which the block expires â two weeks, month, two months â pretty much anything but infinite. Also, we need to think if we need to allow anonymous edits at all. It seems the only reasonable edits are done by logged-in users anyway, so I think it'd be a feasible option. --ZeiP 03:58, 17 November 2007 (EET)
I think that it would be good to block anonymous edits. I avoid giving infinite blocks, but all admins should do so. Juham 00:25, 3 December 1907 (EET)
Any wiki needs advertising: new members, fresh ideas, prevent burnout. Are there any efforts underway to contact the BSA council website admins and ask that ScoutWiki link be added ? Any other ideas ?
Ericblazek 07:16, 30 November 2007 (EET)
Someone should contact the British Scoutnet association, they know many potential contributors. Juham 00:25, 3 December 2007 (EET)
I have just created an account and copied all the State and Section articles of Scouts Australia from Wikipedia. Looking at my contributions, I see it lists 4 back in March or February of this year which clearly are edits to wikipedia, not here. Should the history be copied over when an article is copied over? If so, how? However, I note that those 4 are certainly not the sum of all my WP edits to scouting articles, even up to March when most of the copy seems to have been done. There must be hundreds going back to 2005. --Bduke 03:14, 28 December 2007 (EET)