User talk:MyWikiBiz

Past discussions are archived here:

• Archive 1 (Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)
• Archive 2 (Mar 2007-May 2007)

Wikipedia Review Down 4U?

JA: I can't seem to raise WR. Is that just me? Jon Awbrey 21:36, 29 June 2007 (PDT)

Down for me, too, Jon. Probably a crack team of IP-disrupting cabalists. ;-) Either that, or, did you notice that the Libyan convicted for Lockerbie may be released? Didn't Slim Virgin have something to do with his incarceration? Seriously, isn't there some connection? --MyWikiBiz 09:18, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

JA: I can still get the lo-rider model — http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/ — read only, but there have been no changes in that since the which-end hour. Jon Awbrey 09:58, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

JA: Hah! I read that the first time as "incarnation" — then again, who knows ? — maybe that guy is SlimVirgin ??? Jon Awbrey 10:06, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

I guess we could always say the two things are related, somehow... I mean, they might as well be. Anyway, I've just sent an e-mail to the folks at LunarPages, in hopes they can fix the cached skin file in question without our necessarily having to wait for Selina to do it. I'll let you know if they refuse... In the meantime, I'm still feeling terrible about the whole thing, but just think, a year from now we'll all look back on this incident and feel slightly less terrible! Somey 21:42, 1 July 2007 (PDT)

Remember when AOL went to unlimited minutes for flat fee? The customers swamped the servers so bad, the outages led to front-page news. AOL's stock shot UP at that time, because analysts quickly (and correctly) saw that if AOL access led to front-page news, this Internet thing must be REALLY IMPORTANT to consumers. Of course, AOL sat on their laurels for too many years, and now they are a mere shell of their former self. But, anyway, the analogy may be for us Wikipedia Reviewers... what did we do these past few days, WITHOUT our favorite message board? --MyWikiBiz 21:48, 1 July 2007 (PDT)

Google is not finding us

Something happened, I don't know what, it could be switching to the new metawiki platform, maybe something else but google is definitely not caching any of our new pages correctly. My only new client in a while is getting screwed because his page isn't being found. This link pulls up the cached version of his page and gives an error message that was never on centiare before. "failed to derive URL prefix for timeline API codes" I think this message might be key to finding the culprit. Helping people create exposure is the only reason centiare really exists and right now it isn't doing that very well, at all. My fledgling business is at stake. What should we do? Garrett 10:16, 1 July 2007 (PDT)

I've noticed similar goings on, too, Garrett. Karl is away for a vacation this week, but I think he's back around July 9th. Let's question him then. Personally, I think something is going on with the server -- very slow for the past 10 days, and that would coincide with the 23,000 pages that Karl added with RSS feeds. Could be bogging things down so much that the Google bots are giving up after "time outs". --MyWikiBiz 21:24, 1 July 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for getting back with me. I assumed Karl was on vacation or something similar. My business has been in the toilet and the law firm of James Novak is pissed they no where to be found on google. I'm sure it will all get worked out after he gets back. But for now I'll just enjoy my endless summer sans work. Luckily centiare and working with Lande on wikipedia has netted me near the same as a crappy minimum wage job except a 4 hour work week instead of thirty :) Garrett 08:29, 7 July 2007 (PDT)

How To Create New Semantic Tags?

JA: I forgot how to make new semantic tags. I need to make one called "Poem Of" for a page that has a single poem and one called "Poetry Of" for a page that has a small collection of poems. Or maybe I just asked Karl last time? Jon Awbrey 11:18, 7 July 2007 (PDT)

You can make 'em just like any of the other ones were made -- by creating the text label in a page, then filling out the linked-to page from the RDF table at the bottom of the page. The only thing is that Karl is asking people to "go through him" first, so that he/we can advise on better solutions that may already be in place. Let me make a general apology for being so out of the loop for the past week ... and unfortunately, it's going to continue for a couple of weeks. Jon, you ARE our Centiare Prize winner, though, so we'll be passing the cup here and getting a check to you before the end of the month. --MyWikiBiz 19:58, 8 July 2007 (PDT)

JA: Yeah, I went ahead and followed the paradigm that I saw for Paper Name, Paper Of, etc., but I can't figure out why the Attribute:Poetry Name that I created still reports 0 items under it. Did I do something wrong, or does it take the database that long to refresh? Jon Awbrey 20:56, 8 July 2007 (PDT)

Jon, it's showing up as a Relation, not an Attribute. I hope that helps. I'm not going to have time to troubleshoot this any more this week. --MyWikiBiz 22:09, 8 July 2007 (PDT)

JA: It's okay now. It seems to have gotten picked up on my last edit of the page being tagged. It may have had to do with the order in which I created content pages and attribute-relation pages. Gracias, Jon Awbrey 08:08, 9 July 2007 (PDT)

Nofollow? Howza?

Say, how did you disable the nofollow tags here? I just noticed they were gone. Seattleology 10:29, 9 August 2007 (PDT)

We're cooler with the concept of "web harmony" here, aren't we, S'ology? As far as I know, the Wikipediots who patched in "nofollow" did literally that -- they patched on "nofollow" into the original Mediawiki code. We're working with the more original form of Mediawiki (the way it was meant to be, cooperating with our web brethren to augment page rank), plus the Semantic Mediawiki extension on top of that, for all your "Attribute/Category/Relation" fun. --MyWikiBiz 16:01, 9 August 2007 (PDT)

Please Delete

Dear MyWikiBiz,

Would you please delete these two pages for me:

• Directory:Historical Documents
• Directory:Historical Documents/National Intelligence Estimate on Terrorist Threats to the US

Thanks, I'm moving the project to Poland. --OmniMediaGroup 08:14, 31 August 2007 (PDT)

Both have been deleted. Powodzenia! Looks like it could become a veritable reference site, much like GlobalSecurity.org! --MyWikiBiz 08:31, 31 August 2007 (PDT)

How To Make Outlines In Wiki or HTML

JA: Greg, I need to markup some text that has the standard sort of outline format:

1.

a.

i.

ii.

iii.

b.

c.

2.

3.

etc.

Only with the hanging indents working like they should. Is there a wiki way to do this, short of using tables, or do I have to use all that HTML stuff with "ul" and "il" or whatever, and if the latter, do you know where there's a readable ref? Gracias, Jon Awbrey 10:30, 1 September 2007 (PDT)

Jon, it makes me laugh that you (master of math symbols and such) would be asking me this! I don't know of any "outliner" format tool for Mediawiki. In fact, my understanding is that Wikipediots just do it this way:

Thesis statement: ---

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Brief history of Liz Claiborne

1.2 Corporate environment

2.0 Career opportunities

2.1 Operations management

2.1.1 Traffic

2.1.2 International trade and corporate customs

2.1.3 Distribution blah, blah, blah

Sorry I couldn't be of any assistance. --MyWikiBiz 16:11, 1 September 2007 (PDT)

JA: Just being lazy, in case you happened to know right off. Every time I search for HTML documentation I end up in some W³C preamble about normative specs and optional specs, blah_{1, 2, 3, …, ∞} , and wake up the next morning knowing less than when I started. Jon Awbrey 19:10, 1 September 2007 (PDT)

The Light At The End Of The Gargoyle

JA: Now This Is What I Call Progress !!! Jon Awbrey 13:16, 2 September 2007 (PDT)

Presuming the "progress" is that if we could just get Wikipedia to stop Google from indexing User pages, your very own personally created and protected page on Centiare would be your #1 Google search result for your name. Indeed, that would be progress (and a nifty pat on the back for Centiare -- that a frequently updated/managed page here gets all kinds of Google love). --MyWikiBiz 07:32, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

JA: No, nothing that involves negotiating with wikiphools would count as progress, as that would only serve to legitimate their wikiphoolish ways, and, no matter what you might or might not achieve in the short term by such means, legitimizing their wikiwakiprocedures will only come round to bite you in the butt in the end.

JA: No, I'm just talking about the fact that letting the Wikipedia disease run its course seems to be showing a few hopeful signs at long last. Jon Awbrey 07:56, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thanks much for the welcome Mr. Kohs, I thought I would go ahead and set up a directory page for some old files, after I saw your link on the WR I've been meaning to set this up for awhile. Anyway I'll probably fumble my way through and read some of the help links to get acquainted, thanks again! Derek Elder 17:13, 6 September 2007 (PDT).

Happy Birthday - Go Lions

--OmniMediaGroup 07:51, 7 October 2007 (PDT)

Yes on number one. No on number two. --MyWikiBiz 06:50, 8 October 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for the welcome!

Thank you for the welcome and I hope we get a chance to talk soon. AlexRoshuk 21:54, 3 December 2007 (PST)

MyWikiBizNess As Usual ???

JA: Is it okay to go back to work now? Jon Awbrey 12:30, 6 December 2007 (PST)

Yes and no, Jon. We're going to see what we can do on our lonesome to (first) back up the site, then (second) change templates and logo and footers, all without harming any of the content on site currently. I presume that there's a certain small chance that we really muck up things (a la Somey) and we lose the site's post-December 9th content, and have to restore the backed-up version. That's the risk we're all taking until our crack squad of wiki-tinkerers is comfortable running the site. So, my suggestion is to edit at your liberty, but don't go too crazy with a lot of stuff until we sound the all-clear. — MyWikiBiz 20:59, 9 December 2007 (PST)

JA: Okey Dokey — Jon Awbrey 03:44, 10 December 2007 (PST)

How To Get Table Of Contents Without Numbering?

JA: Does anyone know if there's a way to get the TOC display to omit the section numbers? On some of my papers I need to be able to control the numbering myself, with numbers hard-coded in the section headings.

JA: For instance, see this paper:

• Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry_Driven_Systems

JA: When I hard-code the section numbers then they get doubled up in the TOC Box. In other papers I will need to index sections differently than the default numbering. TIA, Jon Awbrey 09:27, 9 January 2008 (PST)

Jon, here's the code for no number TOC. You may have to clear your browser cache to get the omitted number display. Just place in your article anywhere above the first section. --OmniMediaGroup 09:43, 9 January 2008 (PST)

<div class="nonumtoc">__TOC__</div>

I'm not sure Jon wants to turn them off, just to eliminate the "sub-section" numbering trees, so that they don't display like "1.1.3.4". I really don't know -- other than to just switch off TOC and hard-code a linky-dinked custom table, but that sure would be a lot of effort. Sorry, but this may be one of those "it's just the way Mediawiki is, live with it". You could consult the appropriate WikiProject, but you'd need a clean sockpuppet to interact with them. -- MyWikiBiz 11:31, 9 January 2008 (PST)

JA: No, the above code was just the ticket for what I needed.

JA: Might be good to put in a FAQ — does 1 count as frequent? Jon Awbrey 11:36, 9 January 2008 (PST)

Hey Hey

google finally indexed the site. My work pops up again! Garrett 20:44, 26 January 2008 (PST)

Glad to hear that, Garrett. We have a PageRank of 2/10 on the main page. Centiare had gotten up to 5 (I think), then got backed down to 4. If we keep the press releases, bloggers, and mainstream news opportunities coming, I'm hoping we can get back up to 4/10 by the end of summer. - MyWikiBiz 05:56, 27 January 2008 (PST)

hi hi

Hello. Joined after discussing with Greg at WR. As you see from my user page I'm still struggling with the 'ask' queries. Well, not struggling much but my main interest is building an academic resource which would allow searching for philosophers (or any other historical figure) by the period they were flourishing in. My struggle is with the ISO date format which is of course a string, but all date searches involve ordering of some sort, so how do you convert date strings into orderable units? Well I can see the ISO format used can be sorted, but then for medieval philosophers the best we usually have is year of birth. So to I create a pretend date format 1265-00-00 which is orderable, or just 1265 (which it seems to understand). Any help appreciated. Ockham 05:21, 28 January 2008 (PST)

Update: got it to work. Joy Ockham 05:33, 28 January 2008 (PST)

[UPDATE] Yes I think this is going to be v exciting. The idea of using rankings for biographical subjects (so that one can compare relative rankings of topics in standard reference sources for notability and also, with probably amusing results, comparing with the Wikipedia ranking, e.g. by in k, or in equivalent pages of A4) is powerful. No one has ever done this.

However I am having some trouble getting the attribute thing to work. I have defined the attribute correctly I think, here Attribute:Ccmp Pages. One page, namely Thomas Aquinas has the attribute embedded as | ccmp_pages = [[Ccmp Pages:= 17]] , but the system doesn't seem to recognise it. If someone could show me how to do this I could beef up the help pages a little. Ockham 08:16, 28 January 2008 (PST)

We never were able to figure out why, but it seemed to us that Attributes sometimes take a few minutes, or even a few hours for the actual Semantic Mediawiki to "realize" that they've been applied here or there. It might have something to do with the user's own web cache, too. I am seeing that Thomas Aquinas is now showing his Ccmp Pages to the world. Hopefully, you're successfully seeing the same thing now, too. - MyWikiBiz 08:29, 28 January 2008 (PST)

That wasn't the problem. The problem was the information template didn't work, so had to add a subsetion of the article on 'notability'. It really would be very amusing to compare Wikipedia and the Cambridge Companion, and perhaps the Oxford Companion using these scores. I've got a week or to spare before starting any serious paid employment so will update all 13th century philosophers and could provide a nice little showcase for MWB is you are interested. Ockham 08:34, 28 January 2008 (PST)

Welcome, Ockham! If the Ccmp Pages are going to be used for rank sorting, I would recommend defining a set number of digits and preceding lower values with zeroes so that 004 would sort lower than 017. --OmniMediaGroup 08:41, 28 January 2008 (PST)

Thanks. Although it does appear to sort when you query only those philosophers who have ccmp (i.e. use the + option) Since every philosopher will by definition have a rating (0 if they are not mentioned at all) probably doesn't make sense to use set number of digits (unless you recommend otherwise). Ockham 08:59, 28 January 2008 (PST)

[update] yes, once I populate all the ccmp values it updates correctly. Obviously having null values makes it default to string sort or something like that. Ockham 09:06, 28 January 2008 (PST)

JPEG buffer overflow attacks

Hi Greg. Could you tell DL to look at this?
Secunia Advisory: Microsoft Multiple Products JPEG Processing Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

Thanks,
AB

P.S. Could I emphasise that I am really very grateful to you for getting that despicable Wikia site taken down? {{{{{Greg}}}}}