Battlestar Wiki talk:Site support/Proposals

Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Site support/Proposals

Good idea/bad idea[edit]

Just thought I'd get the ball rolling. --Steelviper 12:01, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

What would be the needed specs on a server? --FrankieG 13:00, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
Good question. I'm thinking we'd need at least a two hamster-wheel model. Joe might have an idea what the hosting company is currently running it on? I've built PC's, but I lack experience with "industrial strength" hardware.--Steelviper 13:28, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
Building a server wouldn't be such an issue... I think that'd be the easiest part. However, my expertise in running a webserver is limited, since computers are more of a hobby for me at this point in my life. However, a server would have to run Linux or some form of Unix capable of running MediaWiki. Also, we would need somewhere about 100 GB in storage, if not more. (Depending on how the wiki grows.) The difficult part would be bandwidth and making sure we have a 99% uptime. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:31, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
That's something that the staff we'll lay off should have been able to do (had we not layed them off). Pretty short-sighted of us... --Steelviper 06:48, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
I'll thorw this in.. I used to administrator a webhosting company off Linux using C-Panel. I also know Linux pretty well as in "commands" and stuff. So any help I can offer in these departments is able to be use. Joe is correct in the bandwidth problem. Finding a server, even a basic server setup with miniuml specs, is easy to find, but the place to find good bandwidth is another. So.. that's my two cents. Shane (T - C - E) 06:52, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Finance Committee[edit]

I just thought I'd get on-wiki what I proposed on the blog. Perhaps we need a formal "Finance Comittee" to actively identify and pursue potential revenue sources. While I know Joe is perfectly capable of such tasks, it'd be nice if we could help do some of the grunt work in terms of calling/emailing/otherwise contacting places to inquire about particular solutions. One member I'd suggest right away would be Mercifull, who has already had several good ideas and recently suggested another idea (shameless affiliate link copied). It doesn't need to be anything big or really formal, but just make semi-regular reports about progress and hopefully get the finance ball rolling. --Steelviper 09:02, 8 November 2006 (CST)

Adbrite Thoughts[edit]

Mercifull and I were bouncing some ideas about advertising, and here is a summary of some of the points that came up:

  • Wikia and some other major players use AdBrite.
  • Ads that take up content space are annoying (see wikia's right side ads).
  • Maybe we could look at putting the ads in the left bar (below everything else), on the bottom (around the copyright stuff), or after all other content.
  • AdBrite displays contextual ads, so you could have advertising that's relevant to a given article.
  • You have editorial control over ads that you place/sell using AdBrite, and people can buy ads for our particular site to target a BSG/Scifi audience.
  • AdBrite appears to be one of the major AdSense alternatives, but it may bring in less revenue than AdSense (with the gain of not being cutoff without appeal and more control over the ads).
  • We could sign up for an account and test the look/feel in the hangarbay before deploying anything on a "live" site.

Pipe in any other thoughts I missed, Merc, or anything else. --Steelviper 10:44, 8 November 2006 (CST)

Not really much else to add. Sign up and try it out on the hangar bay really is all I can say. You can change all the colours to match the site themeand if you were clever with the CSS would could make it different colours depending on the theme loaded so it always looked right. I had a few other idea about places to affiliate with for the target audience (eg. online computer parts stores, music and dvd shops, amazon, digital television) Ive got tomorrow off work so i'll probably come online and do a bit of research then --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 11:54, 8 November 2006 (CST)
This might be important (taken from AB site)
You can choose to review each ad before it appears on your site. You can set the price for ads bought directly on your site. You can even have AdBrite show another ad network (your Google AdSense ads, Burst, etc.) if we can’t meet your minimum revenue requirement
--Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 12:01, 8 November 2006 (CST)
I've signed up for AdBrite. The results are posted at the bottom of each page at ze bloug. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 19:51, 8 November 2006 (CST)
Not bad (once I turned off a certain Firefox extension). It stands out against the white, but it blends with the overall scheme. I guess I'm eager to see a test run on the hangarbay (once it is up and running). But in general, the text is better than images and it's pretty unobtrusive. What where your thoughts on placement in the page scheme? --Steelviper 20:05, 8 November 2006 (CST)
Either below the footer, just in the area above the footer between the article text. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:09, 8 November 2006 (CST)
I like it. Once that's up and running, are there any organizations/entities that we can think of that'd be interested in advertising to our audience? Obviously once the pagehits start accumulating they'll be a lot more attractive, but I was wondering if there might be any particular sites that would have a natural "symbiotic" advertising relationship with us. I'd suggest NBC/Universal, but in a way this entire site is a gigantic (free) advertisement for them, so I'm not sure if they'd really care to pay extra (and also I don't want them to squish us). However, if the powers that be can afford covert internet PR campaigns (as some of the more paranoid believe), they can surely spare some change for a helpful little wiki. --Steelviper 20:30, 8 November 2006 (CST)
I have a reccomendation for some code changes to the advert. At the moment its centred to the entire page instead of just the middle of the content section and so on some resolutions the nav side bar covers up parts of the advert. I reccoment either moving it into the content section just below the categories or into the red copyrights footer at the very bottom. Also sometimes the image which says "Your ad here" is misaligned, possibly due to the css, and looks a bit weird. Also if there are no ads to display just the "your ad here" picture loads and it looks totally weird just seems to stick out in the middle of nowhere. This is why I have some modified advertising code which takes away the sideways "your ad here" and instead puts a plain text based link underneath the advert banner itself. This is not only much clearer than the sideways link but also more personalised and thus an advertiser may be more likely to click. See below:

<script type="text/javascript"> var AdBrite_Title_Color = 'EAF15F'; var AdBrite_Text_Color = 'E6E6E6'; var AdBrite_Background_Color = '1F0B0B'; var AdBrite_Border_Color = '461919'; </script> <script src="" type="text/javascript"></script>
<a href="">Advertise on the Battlestar Wiki</a>

What do people think? --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 21:10, 11 November 2006 (CST)
Mercifull is a genius, and Adbrite looks to be paying the bills (and then some). What's that they say across the pond? Woo! Yay!--Steelviper 21:59, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Peter's Idea[edit]

Peter idea is very easy and I think it can work while still be attractive. The simplest way is for someone to have the max number of exposers would be placing an ad in the site notice area. Now I hate ads and so does other people but with add services like adbrite, a service has to share space. not fun if you are trying to be competitive.

The idea is simply (across all wikis) to have it say "Battlestar Wiki brought to you by xxxxxxxxxxxx" with a simple link. Now if a pool of people want to do it, we like it to Battlestar Wiki:Site support/12 2023 supporters and we sysop the pages and discussion pages from appearing with any "bad" info. --Shane (T - C - E) 11:36, 10 November 2006 (CST)

That wouldn't be bad. The issue, though, is still our core problem. "Show me the money." Or in this case, show me the people that will pay for that link. I'm not saying such people don't exist, just that we'd need to find them and come up with a way to retrieve payment from them. And when their month is up, we'd have to make sure that we had the next month covered as well. One thing that AdBrite buys us straight off is some public pageview and click-through stats that can serve to entice advertisers to buy space (and ideally future space). And with the built-in payment mechanism, as well as stock "network" ads to help pay the bills when particular days aren't covered, it seems like it's worth the cut that we'd end up giving to them. I'd love for Battlestarwiki to be completely financially independent, but I don't see where we'd get the $130+ per month to cover Joe's costs. --Steelviper 11:45, 10 November 2006 (CST)
Actually, I think the most logical place to look for support is from users, not advertisers - the site notice would be a nice way of offering kudos, and perhaps a link back to contributors pet projects. I can certainly afford to chip in $130/year, which means we just have to find 11 other users willing to contribute at that level. If that proves too difficult, we could split a month's support two or three ways. Naturally, if we can raise the full amount per month, I would hope the graphical advertisements could be dispensed with. --April Arcus 01:46, 13 November 2006 (CST)
I agree that ads (especially graphical ads) are no fun. However my support for the advertising stemsfrom a desire to see a consistent revenue stream (so Joe isn't ever stuck with the bill). Also, part of me wishes that our contributors only needed to contribute time/effort to the wiki. That somehow the content that we generate is valuable enough itself that people wouldn't need to contribute time, effort, AND money. "Hey, thanks for contributing all this time and stuff, but can you loan me some money? I need about three-fitty." I'd definitely love it if the community that uses it found it useful enough to support it ad-free. I just fear that in this age where people presume that content (music/movies/software) is/should be free, that they wouldn't be willing to put their money where the server's mouth is. Maybe I'm wrong though. PBS manages it, but then again all the fundraising efforts they make seems to amount to advertising anyway. I guess we could try to cover a month, and see where it goes from there. --Steelviper 06:54, 13 November 2006 (CST)
In principle, I don't find advertisements a whole lot of fun either. However, they are a necessary evil which we must deal with if we are ever to be self-sufficient and not reliant on one person's (or even one group's) finances. Also, there's something unbecoming to me about begging for handouts from other contributors, since I feel much the same way SV does on the subject. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 10:41, 13 November 2006 (CST)
If I tipped $130 toward the site, would you take down the advertising and put up a message to the effect of: "Battlestar Wiki is brought to you ad-free for the month of December by April Arcus. If you would like to become a sponsor, click here." We'll see if anyone else bites, and if not, we can go back to advertising support. I'm personally very much in favor of PBS/NPR style fundraising over adverts. --April Arcus 11:05, 13 November 2006 (CST)
Well, I've come up with a few ideas (or modifications to ideas already presented) below. Depending on what we go with, that would be the answer to your query. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 14:12, 13 November 2006 (CST)
We can use this idea in conjunction with AdBrite. Also, I'm signing up via and a few other online retailers for referrals, so when that gets set, we'll be able to add that to our revenue stream. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:17, 10 November 2006 (CST)
I changed a load of amazon links for the DVDs to the Wiki store with your referral link in place so if anyone clicks them and buys then the wiki will get some funds. I will shortly be checking all the book and CD links to make sure they utilise the wiki store. p.s you need to add Amazon to the whitelist for hotlinked images, the logo shows up as "no hotlinking" on the store :D --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:31, 13 November 2006 (CST)
I was also looking into signing up to be an affiliate. Also, since we're a B&N affiliate, I need to add those links to the corresponding pages as well. As for the image thing, I thought we'd alread addressed that -- unless there's another site calling it up. I'll check into that too. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 10:41, 13 November 2006 (CST)

A couple ideas[edit]

In response to Peter's question above, I've come with a few ideas (or am merely re-iterating and modifying ideas as I understand them thus far):

Idea 1[edit]

Whenever either someone or a group of people donates enough to cover one month's worth of hosting, ads will be removed for a one month period, starting the first day of the next month (to keep things easier to track).

For instance, say John Doe #1 donates $130 on January 3rd. Ads will continue to run until the beginning of February. When February 1st rolls around, the ads will be removed from the site until March 1st. During the period of February, we would also add "Battlestar Wiki, the free online reference and episode guide brought to you by John Doe #1."

Idea 2[edit]

Similar to idea #1, with the exception that we only take ads off the english Batlestar Wiki. We will still have ads on media, zh, et al. This would help encourage contributors to other language wikis to donate as well.

Idea 3[edit]

We find a way to offer an "ads-free" solution to our members. For instance, if you donate a minimum of $5 per month, you get the "ads-free" version of Battlestar Wiki. This would probably take a little work on the programming side, but this would probably be the best solution, accomodating both those who are willing to put their money where their mouth is, per se, and those who are apathetic regarding the ads.

Thoughts? Ideas? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 14:02, 13 November 2006 (CST)

Liking the idea of number three, its an idea ive suggested for another site I am a very frequent visitor too. But they dont really care for the users much and would rather spam the site with popups and spyware :( --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 14:23, 13 November 2006 (CST)
I like idea number one - if we go with it, I might suggest that we list the four largest donors per month, with a link to the complete list, to keep things concise. Idea two is good, but I think we should take into account the relative traffic of each language edition. Idea three bothers me a great deal - I want to view this as a community effort, not a private club. --April Arcus 15:50, 13 November 2006 (CST)
My only concern is regarding stats. I agree that if somebody graciously covers the tab that the "brought to you buy" should be all that need be displayed, but is there any way to keep an invisible "hitcounter" linked to the AdBrite site so that the potential advertisers still see that we are still bringing in (insane amounts of) traffic? Or is that even an issue? --Steelviper 16:53, 13 November 2006 (CST)
It wouldn't be a problem if we used Google - is there a reason we aren't considering them? --April Arcus 17:11, 13 November 2006 (CST)
Google wont track hits without putting the code on your site any different to AdBrite. I dont think theres really anything against google apart from my anecdotal story of them screwing me over for a few hundred dollars after a spammer mass clicked my ads. They closed my account for click fraud and im banned for life from them. Apealing just earns you a copy&paste automated reply. Its also easier for other people to advertise on the site using AdBrite. The publisher can customise the prices and the advertiser can either pay a fixed price per day/week/month or purely by impressions/click thrus. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 19:15, 13 November 2006 (CST)
Also RE: worrying that paying for membership creates a private club, surely having a list of names and how much they donated is more elitist? If you pay $5 a month say to remove the ads, noone else but Joe needs to know. Everything will look the same to everyone else, noone needs to know you pay. The only things thats different if you view the side with no advert banner. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 19:18, 13 November 2006 (CST)
Also I want to add that I really like the idea of donation drives and of we can afford to run the site only on donations then id be more than happy to see the ads vanish forever. I just dont know if im comfortable having a page of names and domation amounts next to it. People might feel that they have to donate as their friends have, other people might feel that they have donated a lot more than other people and thus feel they have a bigger say in changes for example. Donations ios great and all, and if the donators get some kind of benefit out of it, then thats cool (see donation icons) but I dont think the idea of a list of names and stuff is a good idea. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 19:25, 13 November 2006 (CST)
I don't think a list of names is elitist; it's a fairly small token of appreciation for something that can then be enjoyed by everyone. --April Arcus 22:06, 13 November 2006 (CST)
Any movement on this idea? --April Arcus 16:23, 21 November 2006 (CST)

After tossing around the idea, I've concluded that the idea Peter offered has a serious shortcoming: it does not account for unforseen expenditures (such as bandwidth, paid tech support, et al.) and does not cover future expenditures in the form of paying for future months of service. While I'm not adverse to going with the ads-free membership idea which I proposed, the ads permit us (in conjunction with reveneus from Amazon and B&N, as well as donations from members) flexibility to cover not only current expenditures, but future ones as well. Also, AdBrite is paying off for us quite nicely as well (far beyond my initial minimum expectations), and I was recently contacted by Kevin Weatherman, an Account Executive for AdBrite, which I'll further touch upon in another section. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:28, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Our first paid advertiser[edit]

Looks like the Frakheads forum decided to advetise on the wiki which is quite cool. I was going to put an advertisement on myself there the other day but they only accept credit cards. I have emailed AdBrite about debit card payments. :D On a side note though, when you digned up to AdBrite did you put me down as a referrer/sign up by my referral link? --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 05:37, 17 November 2006 (CST)

Uh, that was me. It was partly an experiment to see how the paid placements work, and to see how much of the ad placement price ($5) actually sees Joe's pockets. Hopefully the FRAKHEADS don't mind the extra attention, but I think they'll be psyched. --Steelviper 07:39, 17 November 2006 (CST)
I just used my CC to put a tenner of test ads on just for the day. One just to one of my sites for a laugh and the other more seriously. Should have done it for today really considering traffic will be high later but next slot (so long as joe approves) is tomorrow --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:08, 17 November 2006 (CST)
I got $3.50 from the ad. Which isn't bad. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:25, 17 November 2006 (CST)
Shame you didnt use my affiliate link tho, i could have claimed back a percentage of the ads i paid for, and then bought more to add to the kitty. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 19:03, 17 November 2006 (CST)

Concerns about image advertisements[edit]

A few people have expressed that they would rather not have image and flash banner advertisements, and rightly so imo. So i think we should set the advertisements as "flexible zones" and specify dimentions for the ads outselves. This will ensure nothing will show but text ads. Speak to me on Gtalk if you cant work this out. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 05:37, 17 November 2006 (CST)

Location of advert[edit]



My thoughts... Would stop the adverts being obscured sometimes by the left nav bar. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 08:33, 17 November 2006 (CST)

Also... wasn't there something about CSS and being able to taylor the ads by skin potentially? With the bsgmonobook (white background) I'm still getting the maroon and gold color scheme for the ads. --Steelviper 08:59, 17 November 2006 (CST)
Unfortunately, no. Shane would probably have to use an if statement to pull up an "alternate" theme for the ad. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:23, 17 November 2006 (CST)
This I am working on. Shane (T - C - E) 20:25, 17 November 2006 (CST)
If the advert code was placed into the css rather than the mediawiki file as such then this could be done. A bit of jiggery pokery could be done, but its possible im sure. A littly tipsy atm lol so will look into it in more detail tomorrow. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 19:05, 17 November 2006 (CST)

AdBrite Status[edit]

Is everything ok with AdBrite? I keep getting ads about Adbrite instead of the usual text ads or picture ads, etc. --Steelviper 13:46, 21 November 2006 (CST)

At least the ad is more attractive. The ones with the puppy seem like they were done with MS Paint 1.0. --Spencerian 16:32, 21 November 2006 (CST)
mmm geocoded ads. I'm getting fine ones in the UK. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 18:33, 21 November 2006 (CST)

Approached by AdBrite[edit]

I received an e-mail by AdBrite's Account Executive, Kevin Weatherman, about advertisers who are interested in advertising on the Wiki. Sites such as (a site dedicated to MMORPGs) and other gold member sites are apparently interested, but are wanting a better ad placement on the wiki before committing. The suggestion I was given was to put the ads on the top of the page and on the left (likely underneath the sidebar boxes). I told Kevin that I would discuss this with the members before going with a decision. Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 18:38, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Ok.. here are my questions:
    • Size of the Ad?
    • Above the Search Box or Below Toolbox?
    • All wikis or just en?
    • Over the "suggested" cost?
    • Img or Text? (New question)
That's about it for me.. Shane (T - C - E) 20:00, 19 December 2006 (CST)
Good questions. The ad would be the same size as the ad below -- if it's in the sidebar, it'll be 120 x 200 "skyscraper" bar (or even 160 x 200). As for the ad placement, the only way it'll work is if it's below the toolbox. However, I feel that we may have to put the ad on the right margin, instead of the left (a la Wikia). As for the wikis, I'd like to put the ads on all of them with each having its own "ad zone". -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:38, 19 December 2006 (CST)
I'm game is it's the 160x200 under the toolbox side bar. The left really makes the feel of the wiki smaller and more "in your face". We all still see the ads at the left and we always see the toolbox during both edit and viewing purposes. Toolbox is even closer to the bottom. If it's an img. they should be paying (If it's up for a while, a good chunk of the server cost (and the upgrade to RAM) for it to be worth while to allow. Images get more visibility than the text. Joe, did you submit the actual "stats" to this guy from the AWStats page? Also if you could FW me the email, to my bsgwiki account, that be great. Shane (T - C - E) 20:51, 19 December 2006 (CST)
Haven't submitted any stats, since none were asked for. A majority of the stats they have is compiled from Alexa rankings and other information received from the banner code. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 21:03, 19 December 2006 (CST)
Just so people know... an ad for 30 days is now $85.32 instead of $150.00, but the ads to show per view is up to .27 cents and we get 5,000 unique hits a day. Shane (T - C - E) 20:03, 19 December 2006 (CST)
Here's the link to what Shane's referring to: -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:38, 19 December 2006 (CST)
Cost per click isn't the rate we're payed at, but a computed figure that estimates how much the advertiser is paying per click they receive. Ideally that numbe would be really low, because lots of people are clicking, but that really is more of a factor of good ad placement and good ads. We can worry with the first one but the second one is out of our hands. I don't want to be in a position where we're begging our users to click on our advertisers ads. --Steelviper 21:55, 19 December 2006 (CST)
Thought: Cool! Exciting (once again) to be wanted. Question: Could we get the hangarbay up and running to test out the proposed ad areas? I think it'd be a lot easier for people to decide if they could actually see what it'd look like. I guess I could photoshop something, but the real thing would probably be a lot more effective. Concern: Mostly what Shane was kind of getting at. I just was just concerned whether they'd be covering more than we're currently getting for the CPM revenue (which is pretty darn good). If that's the case, then I definitely think we should consider it. In addition to helping make the wiki financially independent (and finally moving out of it's parents' attic), we could use some of the additional revenue to support additional resources (RAM, etc.) that could improve performance for all users. --Steelviper 21:52, 19 December 2006 (CST)
Love to get the HB working, but I can't seem to install or run the setup. :-P Shane (T - C - E) 08:41, 20 December 2006 (CST)
Thats really cool. I am however a little concerned about advert placement. Putting banner at the top or to the right of the page (like wikia) is of course going to make the viewable area on load a lot smaller. However right now my grandad s very very ill so im going to have to abstain from any vote on the issue for a little bit. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 11:05, 20 December 2006 (CST)
I think it's crucial that we get the hangarbay up and running very soon. There are lots of features and designs i want to test out too to make this place look a bit more pleasant on the eye. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 04:35, 21 December 2006 (CST)
I'll be able to get things going on the technical side after the first week of January, I'd imagine. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 16:48, 22 December 2006 (CST)

The hangarbay is up, and I hardcoded a rough version of the main page to try to replicate the look and feel. I think it's ready to be "pimped out" with ads in all the possible suggested locations so we can get a feel for what it'd look like. --Steelviper 10:35, 5 January 2007 (CST)

The side ad doesn't bother me at all, but I can't really see it on pageload. I'm not sure if it'd appease the advertisers that be. --Steelviper 16:21, 13 January 2007 (CST)
The sidebar ad is ok and seems unobstrusive. Not sure about the one on the top of the page. It depends on the height of the ads --Serenity 16:26, 13 January 2007 (CST)
The top one is just the sitenotice (I think), letting people know that the side ad (which isn't actually much of an ad at present), is for testing. I don't think we've considered a top ad (like the wikipedia ad) at present. We'd better be talking some gold-plated mops for that kind of a sellout. --Steelviper 16:41, 13 January 2007 (CST)
Ah, that makes sense. Never mind then --Serenity 16:43, 13 January 2007 (CST)
I like the advert on the side, its non intrusive and doesnt lower the amount of space used for actual content. I gues it all depends on how much of a monetary benefit a header ad will be. If the page had a site notice message AND the advert banner then the main body of the content will be squished right to the bottom of the page. *ponders* It's something I have to think about, I hate adverts and feel guilty having them on my own sites but without them all the costs of running would come from my pocket so they are unfortunatly neccesary. Perhaps there could be some kind of membership whereby the adverts are removed like on Flickr and --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 03:09, 15 January 2007 (CST)
Unfortunately I'm not sure that a no-ad members feature would be detrimental. If it was for contributing members, that would make sense (since they're helping to carry the load), but it only takes a second to create a username and I wouldn't want to be the one who'd have to discriminate between "contributing members" versus people that just signed up to avoid the ads. Besides, the people who really care about the site are probably willing to put up with a small ad for the good of the wiki anyway. The best argument I've heard recently regarding ads vs. no ads is at Wikipedia, where they say that they have no ads in order to remain neutral and avoid conflict of interest. I don't think that's been an issue here, though, as (like the current Wikipedia funding drive) we're not being asked to alter content for the sake of the advertisers, and as long as that line remains intact I don't feel we're doing a disservice at all. I mean, if there is an overwhelming consensus that the ads are horrible, we could always go back to a cheaper hosting solution, but I think you'd find we'd have an ad-free and nigh unto unusable wiki in its place. --Steelviper 07:20, 15 January 2007 (CST)
Ohh btw Joe, on the adbrite purchase page for the English wiki you have not allowed daily/weekly text links and the only thing people can purchase are CPM adverts. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 03:20, 15 January 2007 (CST)

It's working! (The side ad, that is.) It looks like the sidebar is a bit small, as the whole ad isn't showing. Even with (most of) the ad in place, I still don't mind the sidebar. If that will satisfy the advertisers-that-be, then I would Support yon side ad to gain the favor of the gold member sites. --Steelviper 07:20, 15 January 2007 (CST)