Wiki Error

[Neovalen]

Wiki returning this page when I try to edit:

 

Database error

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

 

(SQL query hidden)

 

from within function "AbuseFilter::checkAllFilters". Database returned error "1146: Table 'stepproj_mw950.765_abuse_filter' doesn't exist (localhost)".

[z929669]

SIG = Skyrim Installation Guide

SG = STEP Guide

 

The former should not be protected, but the latter should. Anything that is a functional component of the SMW-dependency "pathway" needs to be protected.

 

If you mean the orangish text on the MP and the SG, then that one is:

#E6B69E

 

I also use:

#F7C7AF

... as a brighter variant for accents.

[TechAngel85]

SIG = Skyrim Installation Guide

SG = STEP Guide

 

The former should not be protected, but the latter should. Anything that is a functional component of the SMW-dependency "pathway" needs to be protected.

 

If you mean the orangish text on the MP and the SG, then that one is:

#E6B69E

 

I also use:

#F7C7AF

... as a brighter variant for accents.

 

My bad. My mind was saying STEP Installation Guide = SIG.

 

Thank for the highlight color.

[stoppingby4now]

#D17A4E is great for emphasis when combined with #E6B69E. See Category:ModSection_B for an example.

[Thac0]

We will not be allotting sysop status to any of our users outside of admin (sorry); however, we can tweak permissions individually if necessary.

 

RE the "openness" of the wiki: As Farlo has stated in the past (and many others), the wiki will benefit ultimately from many editors. This is how new information gets added and updated. It will be the job of a select few to (voluntarily) take the initiative to add coherence and consistency.

 

Ultimately, I don't think that any pages should be locked down from community edits (accept the SMW engine and pages that functionally drive the wiki).

 

Remember, changes are not lost, so anyone can ultimately revert another's changes.

There's a few extensions for MediaWiki that allow you to set approved revisions for important pages so that only "admin" approved versions get shown to unregistered users. This might provide some anti vandalism control.

 

I've also seen an extension that make new users get "approval" for a set number of edits, though I'm not sure if it was for MediaWiki or another Wiki engine. Something else that might be worth looking into.

[stoppingby4now]

We will not be allotting sysop status to any of our users outside of admin (sorry); however, we can tweak permissions individually if necessary.

 

RE the "openness" of the wiki: As Farlo has stated in the past (and many others), the wiki will benefit ultimately from many editors. This is how new information gets added and updated. It will be the job of a select few to (voluntarily) take the initiative to add coherence and consistency.

 

Ultimately, I don't think that any pages should be locked down from community edits (accept the SMW engine and pages that functionally drive the wiki).

 

Remember, changes are not lost, so anyone can ultimately revert another's changes.

There's a few extensions for MediaWiki that allow you to set approved revisions for important pages so that only "admin" approved versions get shown to unregistered users. This might provide some anti vandalism control.

 

I've also seen an extension that make new users get "approval" for a set number of edits, though I'm not sure if it was for MediaWiki or another Wiki engine. Something else that might be worth looking into.

We aren't as worried about vandalism since only registered users on the forum will have access to write on the Wiki. Key pages that support our infrastructure are protected, but everything else is open to registered members to allow for full contribution.

[Thac0]

We aren't as worried about vandalism since only registered users on the forum will have access to write on the Wiki. Key pages that support our infrastructure are protected' date=' but everything else is open to registered members to allow for full contribution.[/quote']

 

Well it also allows some change control for things like release pages and other things you may not want to be freely edited. I'm in full support of open editing, but some measure of versioning might prove to be useful. Just wanted to throw them out there as options. ^-^

[Farlo]

 

We aren't as worried about vandalism since only registered users on the forum will have access to write on the Wiki. Key pages that support our infrastructure are protected but everything else is open to registered members to allow for full contribution.

Well it also allows some change control for things like release pages and other things you may not want to be freely edited. I'm in full support of open editing, but some measure of versioning might prove to be useful. Just wanted to throw them out there as options. ^-^

 

We've looked at things like this before and gone back and forth on a lot of them.  One of the bigger technical obstacles is that since MW wasn't designed for this level of permissions control, the extensions that provide it aren't very "clean" in their installation and can really mess up your database.  It also makes it a huge pain to update.  The warnings provided on the various Extension pages hosted by MW explain the problem fairly well.