Infogalactic:Galactic boardroom/Archive 02

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Mobile version of Infogalactic

I was wondering if Infogalactic could get a mobile friendly version of the website so that people on phones and other mobile devices could browse this site comfortably. Doesn't the Mediawiki engine (the engine that currently runs Infogalactic), allow for the easy creation of mobile friendly pages?

I believe that's going to happen in the coming future; in fact Wikipedia's outdated interface which isn't mobile-friendly is one thing that's helping to kill the site off with the rise of smartphones.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleting old sandbox articles

I have been blanking my old user sandbox articles, but do not see how to delete them. While I'm sure it is a drop in the ocean, I see no need to keep things around that may even partially slow the database and are no longer needed. Can I delete them, and how? -Deleted, thanks!

Email from Vox regarding context and opinion in articles

Hi, just to set the record straight, we've had some editing disputes over editors adding opinion to articles (e.x. Such-and-such organization is "SJW-converged"), and Vox replied back to me clarifying his stance on this issue.

Apparently in the future there will be sub-pages allowing the documentation of opinion and commentary, but we want to keep opinion off of the main articles and stick just to documenting and reporting facts.:

This mostly refers to features we have not yet incorporated. There will be two additional levels per page, which will permit Context and Opinion. Figure at least 9-12 months before they are available. We are eventually replacing everything, including the core Wikimedia engine, but this is a process that takes time. In the meantime, keep all Context and Opinion off the pages.

Thanks, Vox

On 1/29/2017 10:56 PM, Ovid's Tears wrote: Hi Vox, if you could could you please clarify Canon Seven on behalf of some editors

The Cannon mentions "opinion" and "context" levels - how does this work exactly? Do authors who want to write opinion pieces get a seperate namespace from the factual article for that, or something of that nature? Thanks.

--Tears of Ovid (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked Sites

I had a link to "Whale dot to", where ever and whatever that is, that was blocked. It happened before recently but I forget what site. I'd love at the very least for there to be a read-only list of what's blocked, preferably with correlating reasons why. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


The default additional source for SpamBlacklists list of forbidden URLs is the Wikimedia spam blacklist on Meta-Wiki, at m:Spam blacklist. By default, the extension uses this list, and reloads it once every 10-15 minutes.

The blacklist can be found at metawikimedia:Spam_blacklist. The Wikipedians maintain it, so their biases are incorporated into it. --Idris (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That's a lot of info. I ran into another at "wanttoknow dot info". If it's okay I'll white list these two. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I spoke too soon. That's all for MediaWiki not InfoGalactic. Can an administrator please create InfoGalactic WhiteLists that overrides the MediaWiki BlackLists? I'd like "" and "" added please. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the team's planning on creating their own Metawiki replacement in the near future.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
So, it seems that the code does use Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. does not seem to be on there, so some external source is also possibly being used. Let me check it out and try to white list those sites after reviewing them. --Crew (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── is on metawikimedia:Spam_blacklist:

Yes, I just discovered that, so I will have to whitelist it. In addition, we might be able to get rid of their whitelist. It's only code, after all. Its the editor extension code that handles that. --Crew (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, my attempt to whitelist whale dot to did not work so now I need to read the code to find out why. --Crew (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

--Idris (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts so far. Still blocked. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, so, at least for version 1.27.1 of the SpamBlacklist extension it does not do what we thought and what the README says. That is, it does not read from the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist pages, however, it does read from the MediaWiki list on the net. I have a small mod that does force the first to be read from, and can add one to read the Whitelist, but I am wondering at the utility of being held captive by MediaWiki and their black list. I suspect we should skip that blacklist. -- Crew (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just an update. I was diverted on getting the link to Infgalactic News going, but yesterday I discovered why the local whitelist (and blacklist) are not working. I also realized that since they always pull in the metawikimedia:Spam_blacklist which gives us no control over what they do on that list. So, I am planning on a change here to get rid of the remote spam blacklist and have our own. It reuses pretty much all of the code. --Crew (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, I just installed a mod to the SpamBlacklist extension that:

  1. Gets rid of the upstream spam black list so we are not at risk of being screwed over by them, and
  2. It correctly reads the local MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:Span-whitelist

If you see a problem, let me know.

You should be able to refer to or whatever. Note, the spam filter looks for links, so it will find http[s]:// but not (Heh, I had to remove from the blacklist. How many more?)

Now back to the main page stuff.


When will User:JasonCarswell/Pedophocracy be legally acceptable and moved to Pedophocracy? No pressure or deadline, I'm just curious about the process. People keep adding stuff to it, which is great, but I'm finally done with the terrible business. I really had no interest in doing this article, but as it keeps coming up from so many sources, it seemed to me there should be a list, which had to be split into "proven" and "accused". Then it turned into an article. Admittedly I wasn't taking notes originally (but narrowed one statement down to one of three sources). I didn't make anything up. It's all coming from somewhere, and everything is noted where I saw it in these last two weeks. I've not even considered anything before that. Now that it's established I'll continue adding as it comes up, but don't count on much. This is not my realm. Apart from eventually watching the two documentaries cited within, I'm pretty much done with this article, though it could potentially use more research, citations, and content someone else can add. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Watched the documentaries, added a few notes for one and added a summary for the other. I also added an item needing expansion and citations about systemic Native American child abuse which was widespread across USA and Canada until the 1960s or even 1970s by clergy and teachers. But I can't finish that item right now. Please feel free to expand upon it. I'm done with this shit. Please let your lawyers look it over. I feel it's great with a couple items that need expansion and worthy of being published as is. It needs to go public. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I plan on reviewing it this weekend and seeing if we can put a draft back in the article namespace.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That's great and sooner than I anticipated. Sooner is nicer. I just don't want it forgotten. Take more time if you need, just keep me posted and/or don't forget. Also, if you have any constructive criticism I'm keen to improve. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

InfoGalactic Logo - a graphics experiment

Original - Infogalactic logo 003 125.png

As you may have noticed, the InfoGalactic logo looks a little wonky. I took the liberty of tracing it with vectors from that low rez image. It's not a perfect logo, but it is perfectly symmetrical. I can upload the InfoGalactic Logo Cleanup Outline + or make a vector file if you like.

I exported a PNG at 600dpi with a white background and uploaded it, and while the file size is small, InfoGalactic had an error creating a thumbnail from a file greater than 12.5mp. That 7000x7000 centered image on a white background shrunk is here. I exported a PNG at 600dpi with a transparent alpha channel and uploaded it, and while the file size is small, InfoGalactic had an error creating a thumbnail from a file greater than 12.5mp. That 6491x400 image with clear alpha is here.

Rebuild - Infogalactic Logo Rebuild +Alpha 155x125.png

It looks okay. However, when I shrunk the alpha version to 155 width and swapped it with the official logo, keeping the bottom text intact, to my eye some of it looks cleaner, but there's still a certain wonkyness to parts of it. Besides not being 100% accurate to the low rez logo I had to work from (unintentionally, now shrunken mine evidently has more curve), it seems evident to me that certain curves and angles do not work well with a limited number of pixels. I could give it a second pass.

I'm not wasting your time just to hear myself type. I'm interested in hearing what you think. I'm offering my design expertise for free. This is how the process works, if you want it, this is the start. Maybe you want a new logo. (I'd love to do variations for you.) Maybe you want it tweaked in certain ways. Maybe you want it left alone. Comment as you see fit. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup of Pedophocracy article

I tried to salvage what I could; some of the content I've removed can still be viewed in the history and moved to other appropriate articles (e.x. the lists of public figures convicted of child sex abuse), but the article as it was originally was full of original research and soapboxing, and some of the sources (e.x. Infowars; Wikia) are questionable, and have to be reviewed individually.

Since there seems to be too big an influx of original research on IG, I plan on reviewing Wikipedia's sourcing policy, as well as briefing myself on journalism guidelines, and see if we can draft a more clearly-defined sourcing policy which prevents issues like this from occurring.--Tears of Ovid (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

InfoGalactic news

Is there some way to integrate this with the News feed on the main page so that it automatically links stories?--Tears of Ovid (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That is going to be an interesting challenge ... what were you thinking of? -- Crew (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Infogalactic News 2017-03-02 AM

See (or, if archived,

One of the headlines

  • CIA pays Amazon $600 million - questions raised about Washington Post

links to a report from December 2013. If you want to point to old reports for some reason, the least you can do is provide some clarification about the report date within the sub headline. Whitebeard (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

So, all I do there is pull the material that is on the site and display it in the area provided after eliminating some simple stuff (like extraneous BR's in the HTML. The best way to complain about that is to send email to ... maybe they need a feedback link. --Crew (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Future directions on the front page

Here are some things I am planning to do. Suggestions are also welcome.

  1. Further modify the JavaScript that inserts the stuff to squeeze out more of the HTML BR's in there so it doesn't expand so much.
  2. Modify the Anniversary stuff so it randomly selects from the Events section of existing Anniversary articles. This will reduce the labor associated with creating that section.

-- Crew (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocking Outrage

User is blocked
Your IP address has been automatically blocked because it was used by another user, who was blocked by Idris. The reason given is:
Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Allbanglanewspaper".
The reason given for Allbanglanewspaper's block is "Spammer."
- Start of block: 12:28, 7 March 2017
- Expiration of block: 12:28, 8 March 2017
- Intended blockee:
You may contact Idris or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

I don't know who "Allbanglanewspaper" is or why I got blocked with him/her.
This confusion cannot continue.
"Spammer" allegations without examples of proof.
The Idris and administrators links had no contact information or way to refute this absurd claim.
This is absolute bullshit and needs to be resolved immediately. Tighten up this shit.
And who gets blocked for one day. That's just stupid. This is abusive absurdity.
Your absolute power has corrupted you when you weren't bothering to pay attention.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Allbanglanewspaper was a spammer, and I blocked him and deleted the spam. Another sysop, Crew, also acknowledged Allbanglanewspaper as a spammer. The problem is that, by default, a checkbox known as Autoblock ("Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from") is ticked. Unbeknownst to me, the website assigns everyone the same IP address, probably as a privacy / security measure.
What happened wasn't the result of "absolute power corrupting"; it was a result of default options and what was then unknown to me. In fact, pretty much every sysop was guilty of what I did: all prior blocks were made without "autoblock disabled". I fixed the problem by disabling the autoblock feature on all blocks still in effect.
I'll see what I can do to ensure that this never happens again. --Idris (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response.
Please see that you post some better contact information for yourself, the empty adiministrator's page, and/or create some kind of form or something to submit admin problems/queries/etc. I was locked out without recourse. If it had been longer than a day...
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The message you saw looked something like this: (meaning of the variables). I'll see if I can have someone add the contact Email address mentioned on Infogalactic:About added to it. --Idris (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Update: Crew is working on it. --Idris (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Infogalactic News 2017-03-22 AM

This is Infogalactic News:

   Shots Fired at UK Parliament
   (Officer Stabbed and Assailant Shot, At Least a Dozen Mowed Down on Westminster Bridge)

And this is Drudge:


Drudge has been doing this job for more than twenty years and thus has some advantages when it comes to quickly reading the situation and updating his headlines.

In comparison, I find Infogalactic News to be somewhat conservative when it comes to headlines as well as update frequency.

Whitebeard (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Infogalactic News : General suggestions

1. Can you remove the non-working link to the next/future twelve hours (top-right) on the default page?

2. The existing system with the page changing every twelve hours is functional. However, one has to keep clicking the link on the top-left to go to the previous page. Further, it is not apparent that the links function as prev/next buttons. Has thought been given to a "more" link at the end of the list of articles, or a never-ending list of articles where more articles are loaded on request/scrolling?

Whitebeard (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see this when you originally wrote it. What are you referring to? - -Crew (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I assumed you were referring to [ Infogalactic News] so I went and had a look. There is some weirdness if you click back enough times so I brought it up with the people doing that site. -- Crew (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A Delicate Matter

Hello All Galaxians!

I am a newbie. First of all, I think the Infogalactic project is fantastic because Wikipedia sucks. And I am glad some people had the agency to get the infrastructure done. I am willing to help fork Infogalactic away from Wikipedia, which is where I think all its value-add can only come from going forward.

I have read the seven canons and all the onboarding materials. They are all pretty meaningful, but to some extent they are directed towards everyday topics. Some topics are slightly more controversial, and I would assume that special rules apply there; or, to put it better, that some of the official rules are enforced more ruthlessly. Having been a reader of Vox Day's blog for a while now, I have no doubt that Infogalactic will ban me forever if I do anything underhand, so that's why I want to come clean before I make my first editing.

I would like to edit the biography of Rudolf Hoess, the most notorious commander of the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. I think that the current version of the page is omitting certain significant and well-documented facts about the reliability of his testimony (extracted under torture, threats to the life of his son, etc) that would put his self-incriminating confessions under perspective for the average reader. There is even a mainstream historian who stated in print that the evidentiary value level of his confession is weak (I have the reference).

Essentially I'm just flagging out that I'm going to do it, so you don't have to respond if you don't care; but I am also fully cognizant of the fact that newbies shouldn't enter minefields, so I'd like to know if this is the kind of editing that the Galaxian community can accept. Any gentle advice beyond the seven canons would be appreciated. Basically, what's a newbie who enters a minefield got to do to avoid getting banned forever? I think there's the obvious: stick to verifiable facts - and I will; but maybe in this case the approach is more complex?

Ws48 (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no problems with you editing that entry as long as the changes are sourced and well thought out. Here's how to go about it to minimize issues. Copy the existing entry to something like User:Ws48/Rudolf_Hoess and make your changes there. That way we can see what your changes are likely to be and can give you advice along the way. When it is done, you can copy the completed article over the original. Perhaps you could also discuss the deficiencies you see with the current article in your user page: User:Ws48 or the talk page associated with you: User talk:Ws48. (Note, I have provided links to make it easy for you to create those pages where necessary. Some of them don't currently exist.) -- Crew (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My answer: Thank you for your help, and I have created the pages that did not previously exist. I would ask all further discussion by interested parties on this topic to be moved to my user page User:Ws48 so as not to clog up the Boardroom unnecessarily. Ws48 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

re: delicate matter

If the current version of the page about Rudolf Hoess omits significant and well-documented facts about the reliability of his testimony, then the missing information should be added. All that matters is that it should be true, or at least verifiable through citations. Jack-arcalon 13:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. -- Crew (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree. May I also suggest that you consider another sub-title that openly admits that it is a non-mainstream corporate media perspective, alt-history, lesser-known facts, or something along those lines. If not in a dedicated sub-section, then at least declare it in a defensive sentence. Naturally well-sourced citations are important. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)