HRWiki:Da Basement
From Homestar Runner Wiki
It's dot com (Talk | contribs) (new thread button) |
It's dot com (Talk | contribs) (Guestbooks) |
||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
:If you [[Special:Userlogin|register for an account]], that will be the last time you will have to input the code. -- [[User:Tom|Tom]] 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | :If you [[Special:Userlogin|register for an account]], that will be the last time you will have to input the code. -- [[User:Tom|Tom]] 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Guestbooks == | ||
+ | |||
+ | Guestbooks started out as kinda cute. Then they became a fad. Now it seems that everybody's user pages are being edited by other people. I remember a time when such a thing was vandalism nine times out of ten. Having guestbooks is really becoming a nuisance for recent changes. I think we should do away with them. I don't even think moving them to a subpage is a good idea, because it seems most people just go around blindly signing them, without actually reading the page in question. I would prefer, if someone had read my user page, that they just made some kind of meaningful comment on my talk page. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:24, 15 January 2006
Welcome to Da Basement! This is a messageboard for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on the Homestar Runner Wiki. Although it is aimed mostly at sysops, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.Archive 3 (21-30) | Archive 4 (31-40) | Archive 5 (41-50)
Archive 6 (51-60) | Archive 7 (Logo discussion) | Archive 8 (61-82)
Archive 9 (83-102)
Contents |
Episode V. The DoS strikes back?
Am I the only one encountering serious slowdowns? Are we being attacked by a DoS again? --Stux 01:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Recent Vandal Attack
Just to let you know, the recent vandel attack was done by zombies, which are computers infected with a trojan. A proxy block list won't block these bots. Anyways, I'm begun to pick apart mediawiki and see if I can make a bot-prevention script for you guys/the other wikis out there. Think of something a bot can't read. [Big ol' Hint: a image] [PS, move this if this is in the wrong place] - Mick
- These IPs in general show too many similarities to be random machines, in my opinion. Also, I believe some one person is driving these attacks, because they start and stop, and because whoever it is adapts to our countermeasures in specific ways. — It's dot com 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- If we're going to do anything with an image, here's an idea I had: Set it up somehow so that it would be impossible to enter the domain hrwiki.org without entering whatever characters are in the image. Something like we had on the old wiki where when you clicked on a link to the admin page, a dialog box came up asking for your login info. I guess we would have to set it up so that if you followed a link here, even from another wiki that interwiki links to us se up like Wikipedia or This Might Be a Wiki, you'd see that dialog box. I know it would really annoy some people, but my guess is that if we were to not do it that way, vandals would just go to those wikis and click links to us and get in that way. If we're not going to use a scrambled image, that's completely fine by me—we'll do what we have to do—ignore what I just said. It might not be feasible, practical, or even possible. As I've said before, I don't know much about the technical aspects of the Internet, just how to use it. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 20:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- ACupOfCoffee: Feel free to write your own MediaWiki extension to do your above suggestion. -- Tom 21:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the extent of my programming abilities is programming formulas into TI calculators, which takes me a long time to do. I don't know if I'm the guy to do it,but I'll see if there's already one like it posted to Meta. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 22:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I even understand what you're proposing. — It's dot com 22:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- What I'm proposing is that when somebody enters the hrwiki.org domain, no matter how they got here, (i.e.: typed it into the address bar, clicked a link on another site) they get dialog box with a Wikipedia:Captcha for them to identify. But not just for viewing the main page, because that could be circumvented by thping in the url of another page on the wiki, and would create a problem for people already on the site returning to the main page. It's sort of like those sites where you can't even view their home page unless you log in, and when you try to go to them you get a log in dialog box on top of the page you were on before. I believe this extension makes you identify a Captcha every time you try to edit a page. The only big problem with it is that it's for MediaWiki 1.3, and the guy who wrote it can't vigure out how to get it to work on 1.5. He has a preliminary non-working version up with a requset for help on making it work. When and if he gets it to work, we could tweak it for our own purposes. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh that's what I was looking for... if he has Code, I might be able ... to help? (Agh but i've been so busy!). --Stux 23:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- What I'm proposing is that when somebody enters the hrwiki.org domain, no matter how they got here, (i.e.: typed it into the address bar, clicked a link on another site) they get dialog box with a Wikipedia:Captcha for them to identify. But not just for viewing the main page, because that could be circumvented by thping in the url of another page on the wiki, and would create a problem for people already on the site returning to the main page. It's sort of like those sites where you can't even view their home page unless you log in, and when you try to go to them you get a log in dialog box on top of the page you were on before. I believe this extension makes you identify a Captcha every time you try to edit a page. The only big problem with it is that it's for MediaWiki 1.3, and the guy who wrote it can't vigure out how to get it to work on 1.5. He has a preliminary non-working version up with a requset for help on making it work. When and if he gets it to work, we could tweak it for our own purposes. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've already developed a Captcha system that is ready to be implemented. I'm just waiting for our host to install a few PHP libraries. -- Tom 00:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wait, are we going to have to see the Captcha every time we try to edit, or when we log in? Homestar Coder 00:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the plan is for when we log in/create a user or when an anonny makes an edit. — It's dot com 00:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ohhh! cool! Well I guess my services are not needed in this respect. So you managed to get Captcha to work on 1.5? --Stux 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- While it'll be good to open back up to the public again, I can't help but feel like we're still loosing something to that troll; that anonymous users might be somewhat discouraged from editing, if it means copying out an image too. At the very least, it'll be a hassle. Although it may turn out to be a good thing, encouraging annonymous users to create accounts, to limit the copying needed. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- By copying you mean typing the image contents? If they're going to do editing (which involves typing) we're only adding a little bit to their typing. Granted, they have to do some processing of that image in their heads but it's still minimal. --Stux 13:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- While it'll be good to open back up to the public again, I can't help but feel like we're still loosing something to that troll; that anonymous users might be somewhat discouraged from editing, if it means copying out an image too. At the very least, it'll be a hassle. Although it may turn out to be a good thing, encouraging annonymous users to create accounts, to limit the copying needed. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 06:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ohhh! cool! Well I guess my services are not needed in this respect. So you managed to get Captcha to work on 1.5? --Stux 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I believe the plan is for when we log in/create a user or when an anonny makes an edit. — It's dot com 00:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I bet there are a zillian people that don't like regestering. So you could just put the image varifacation thing and when they put it in right, it puts in a cookie. And if you don't have the cookie in your browser, it redirects them to the page w/ the image varifacation page. It's possible to do that w/ javascript. I'll go look it up ::strongfan::
- That would be a good idea. Just remember that adding that will still require a decent amount of coding on media-wiki since cookies are easy to forge without proper authentication methods. It's possible that the good people here at the wiki have already thought of that and might be planning for it in the long term. --Stux 15:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- That would be a bad idea, as it would defeat the whole purpose of the security. — It's dot com 19:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. And they already put up the image varifacation thing. Sigh . I didn't get the code in time. Oh well. Problem is solved anyway. ::strongfan::
Image uploading
I can't fix this, or I'd do it myself, but the image upload screen no longer has the check box to confirm that no copyrights are being violated. This isn;t a change in MediaWiki 1.5 because TMBW still has it. There is one to watch the page, but leaving that unchecked doesn't provide a warning about breaking copyright law, so I know that it is not merely mislabeled. Come to think of it, we ought to have a dropdown box to select the appropriate copyright tag to go on the image page at uploading like the 'Pedia does. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Say, that's not a bad idea. I'll look into this a little later, unless someone beats me to it. — It's dot com 15:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm... It's been over a week and I still haven't done anything on this. I'd better write myself a note. — It's dot com 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
New Community Project
It's been awhile since Peasant's Quest, and I'm thinking we could go up for another one. I've been wanting to make a nice standard for Tandy 400, Compy 386, and Lappy 486 for a while. Also, the Store is a mess. Should we start another one up? Any ideas? —FireBird|Talk 17:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think that there is another, more importent project the community need to do. Personal images and signature images tags. Each user need to tag his images and take after abandoned images of users past and images of users departed. Other images, not from the user variety also need to be tagged as web-screenshots and game=screenshots. Could this be done in a week? — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 05:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Extensively using Mozilla's (and when I'm in a computer lab, Firefox's) tabs, (and having, like, 50 open at once) I've managed to do 500 of them in 2 or 3 45 minute sittings. A week doesn't seem unreasonable to me, granted I can only work that fast when I'm at school on the LAN, but I'm sure enough of us have broadband to do it. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ @ 21:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- A week is fine, but we should divide it up somehow like we did for HRWiki:ProxyBlocks. We need groupings of all the tags in the categories E.L. Cool mentioned:
{{web-screenshot}} |
| ||
{{game-screenshot}} |
| ||
{{dvd-screenshot}} |
| ||
{{web-soundclip}} |
| ||
{{personal-image}} |
| ||
{{personal-image-sig}} |
| ||
{{personal-image-abandoned}} |
|
At the moment, people are doing the tagging randomly, which isn't helping if you're trying to find images to tag yourself. — Lapper (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Unblocking
All right, fellow admins. Some of you have noticed that there are a lot of IPs out there that have been blocked indefinitely for only making a few trollish edits. Those blocks were generally made more than a year ago, and policy seems to have changed to allow for the second-chances of trolls, and also the chance that there may be a responsible person trying to edit the wiki from that IP. I've made a small, incomplete list of troll IPs that do not appear to be all that serious. Comb through the block list yourself too. Are you all in agreement that some of the IPs should be unblocked? What about all of the IPs? Keep an eye out for any indefinitey blocked AOL proxies. —BazookaJoe 00:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- 4.62.191.117 (contribs | log | block)
- 213.39.181.139 (contribs | log | block)
- 80.43.109.64 (contribs | log | block)
- 80.46.168.155 (contribs | log | block)
- 68.220.79.236 (contribs | log | block)
- 24.203.226.202 (contribs | log | block)
- 216.120.190.122 (contribs | log | block)
- 69.245.217.37 (contribs | log | block)
- Hmmm... Perhaps 2006 should be a jubilee year! I'm all for giving them another chance. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 00:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, unblocking sounds fine. -- Tom 01:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I unblocked all 3 of the troll AOL proxies. I did not check the BlockedProxies (no intention/reason to), but I did glance and noticed something that brings up a question. Aren't 152.163.240.0/21 and 152.163.248.0/22 part of the AOL range 152.163.0.0/16 (152.163.0.0 - 152.163.255.255)? —BazookaJoe 03:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I unblocked quite a few tonight, mostly those that were quite minor. A few major trolls, too. It's been so long they probably will never come back. It's dot com has told be that the ranges above are in the AOL range, so Tom or Dot com may want to take a look at the proxies we blocked in Nov 2005, because at least those two are in there. I'll continue slowly unblocking if no one else wants to jump in. —BazookaJoe 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- WOOHOO! I can edit again! 216.120.190.111 05:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The Clamburger Bot
I recently made a bot called Clamburger, so could a Boo-roo-cat please give it (bot) status here and (bot,sysop) status on the Fanstuff? -- Super Sam 14:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- What's up with these edits: [1], [2], and [3]? What kind of bot is this? What software are you using to control the bot? This is all beside the point, of course, as users aren't even allowed to operate bots. Why do you want to have this one? -- Tom 16:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- For the first two, I accidentally ran over them twice, and for the last one, it was a bug in the double redirect corrector, which I fixed anyway. I'm using the Pywikipediabot software. I wasn't aware of the bots policy. Feel free to block it on the Knowledge Base, but I'm a sysop on the Fanstuff, so I should be able to keep it there. It's making plenty of useful edits. Cut me some slack, I'm still learning. -- Super Sam 16:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've blocked User:Clamburger per our policy. I'll allow you to use the bot on the fanstuff wiki, but I won't mark it as bot so that its edits will still show up on the default Recent Changes view. -- Tom 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't that going to flood Recent Changes? -- Super Sam 03:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly right. -- Tom 03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Image Code
It is become a challenge for broth the eye and brain to edit a page. On my last edit, it took me 5 minutes to have my edits appear on the article. Maybe the image code should be retired?--65.167.69.54 14:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you register for an account, that will be the last time you will have to input the code. -- Tom 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Guestbooks
Guestbooks started out as kinda cute. Then they became a fad. Now it seems that everybody's user pages are being edited by other people. I remember a time when such a thing was vandalism nine times out of ten. Having guestbooks is really becoming a nuisance for recent changes. I think we should do away with them. I don't even think moving them to a subpage is a good idea, because it seems most people just go around blindly signing them, without actually reading the page in question. I would prefer, if someone had read my user page, that they just made some kind of meaningful comment on my talk page. — It's dot com 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)