Welcome to Wikispooks!
We're glad you came. There's lots to do.
The Community portal is probably the best place to start for new users. To add a Wikispooks search facility to your browser, go here. If you've got a topic you're itching to write about, just dive in. If you're not sure where to start, you can introduce yourself by editing either this page or your user page. Robin (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2016 (IST)
Thank you for your occasional contributions to Wikispooks. They are always apposite to the site's core purpose, plus well constructed and referenced. They are much appreciated. --Peter P (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2018 (GMT)
Carbon Dating The Web - Predict the Birthday of a Webpage!
time travel - rebuilds website from various archives
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16441/how-to-determine-the-aircraft-tail-number-on-a-particular-flight - http://archive.is/qNoiS
FOIA and released documents:
picture editing online:
Military analysis US side:
Articles discussing Zbigniew Brzezinskis Between two ages:
I just modified your reversion to Document:Gangsters Paradise . Well spotted on the typo. I replaced the link with an internal one, since the original document didn't have it. -- Robin (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikispooks:Style_Guide#Standard_sections notes that "See also" sections are deprecated - the idea being to aim for ways to link in similar pages that explain their relevance. Are there any more possible missile struck planes? If so then we could try having a page for them and using |const. -- Robin (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That I did not have in mind, sorry. If this is in the style guide and effective since 2014, then I guess it's not very much up for debate. But it is a very easy way to add links to related topics - in general I have to say, I am in favor for a see also section, at least in some cases. I guess relacing in the 'Style guide' means replacing. So that whatever I would file under 'see also' is in some way to be integrated in the text? For the "Sexual blackmail" article I would add in the first paragraph that on Wikispooks there are the articles: "VIPaedophile" and "The Pedophocracy" which deal with a similar (same?) topic in a different way. Not sure if there are other good ways to do this, cant think of anything better there.
Beside that you may now create a section for downed airplanes by a missile, so if I would like to link from Itavia Flight 870, to KAL007, to TWA800 and to MH17 then I would be writing a sentence or two in the articles, that there are these other air disasters, that were caused in a similar way and that they are equally suspicious because of this, that and the other. Is this the way to go? Sunvalley (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
What do you think about a separate Lockdown timeline, say at COVID-19/Pandemic/Timeline? I'm concerned that it we put too many events, it might lose the focus. -- Robin (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is probably true. As you say it can be another timeline on the same page. I feel that it should overall not be to many sub-pages, but then again I was thinking that for consequences like: economic, coming food shortages, etc. way may need another. Cant do much today, please go ahead. -- Sunvalley (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hello. From the viewpoint of navigation on the site, I think that it may not be ideal to build too many sub-pages from sub-pages. The casual reader likely will not use/see/recognise this since it is a bit different from Wikipedia where (mostly) all info for a topic is centred around one page and one sub-page if it comes to that. The point generally is, that information gets scattered over too many pages like this (you loose oversight which one you've read and which one you haven't opened yet). Maybe it is possible to leave it as it is for now. When it gets out of hand then it can still be done. A separate timeline page at COVID-19/Timeline that list both timelines?. With one sub-page from the main topic it is a bit more clear and you can click one topic after the other and read what is important to you.
- At the other hand, if you say it already makes more sense to sort it like this, then no problem with me.
- The other timeline software that you enabled with the Kennedy assassination will not get displayed without Java, so will many readers see this? Don't know how people browse this site, but on the web I mostly turn Java off.
I just replied to your query at Template talk:Document - the summary is to try Template:Rate. Probably the easiest way to get started is to copy one from User:Robin and adjust as needed. -- Robin (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Congratulations on your MS Estonia rating! I've just tweaked it a bit to use all the fields, in case that helps. I'm at a loss to explain why the bottom section is deficient on the MS Estonia page. That template has been broken for ages (by an SMW upgrade) so perhaps it's time I worked out what went wrong with it. -- Robin (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)