HRWiki:Da Basement

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Guestbooks)
(Guestbooks)
Line 173: Line 173:
:::::::::::I'm not sure exactly who started the fad, but my money's on [[User:Smileyface11945|Smileyface11945]]. Both [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=User:Smileyface11945&oldid=116185 his] and [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=User:Thunderbird_L17/Guestbook&oldid=171056 my] guestbooks predate that of [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=User:Bubsty&oldid=198810 Bubsty]'s. Still, I think Bubsty ammased the most sigs, and I belive it was his' that influenced the inordanant influx of guestbooks. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not sure exactly who started the fad, but my money's on [[User:Smileyface11945|Smileyface11945]]. Both [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=User:Smileyface11945&oldid=116185 his] and [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=User:Thunderbird_L17/Guestbook&oldid=171056 my] guestbooks predate that of [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=User:Bubsty&oldid=198810 Bubsty]'s. Still, I think Bubsty ammased the most sigs, and I belive it was his' that influenced the inordanant influx of guestbooks. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:His is gone. [[User:24.18.208.18|24.18.208.18]] 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:His is gone. [[User:24.18.208.18|24.18.208.18]] 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 +
::Also, Bubsty never started guestbooks. He said he got it from RJMT somewhere. [[User:24.18.208.18|24.18.208.18]] 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
== Image formats ==
== Image formats ==

Revision as of 23:48, 17 January 2006

Where all the cool guys hang out
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.
Current | Archive 1 (1-10) | Archive 2 (11-20)
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)

Ooooops! I just saw the discussion in the main page, nevermind.--Stux 01:52, 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)
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 Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 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)

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}}
Copyright undetermined This is a screenshot of a copyrighted web page. It is believed that screenshots may be exhibited under the fair use provision of United States copyright law. See Copyrights for more information.
{{game-screenshot}}
Copyright undetermined This is a screenshot of a copyrighted computer game or video game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the computer or video game in question or the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to turn a profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Copyrights and fair use rationale.
{{dvd-screenshot}}
Copyright undetermined This is a screenshot of a copyrighted DVD video, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the producers of the disc and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the DVD video in question or the copyrighted character(s) depicted on the screenshot in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to turn a profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Copyrights and fair use rationale.
{{web-soundclip}}
Copyright undetermined This is a sample from a copyrighted musical recording. The person who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent people who use it in articles, assert that this qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law when used on the Homestar Runner Wiki, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit organization Fellowsites, where:
  • The sample is being used for commentary on the music recording in question, and contributes significantly to the encyclopedia articles it is used in (listed under the heading "File links" below) in a way that cannot be duplicated by other forms of media.
  • The sample is short in relation to the duration of the recorded track and is of an inferior quality to the original recording.
  • No other samples from the same track are used in HRWiki.
  • There is no adequate free alternative available.
  • A more detailed fair use rationale may be provided by the user who uploaded this recording.

Any other uses of this recording, on HRWiki or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. If you are the copyright holder of this recording and you feel that its use here does not fall under "fair use" please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for information on how to proceed.

{{personal-image}}
Copyright undetermined
This image is being used as one of the personal images allowed to [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]].
{{personal-image-sig}}
Copyright undetermined
This image is a personal image in the signature of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]].
Certain restrictions apply.
{{personal-image-abandoned}}
Copyright undetermined
This personal image has been abandoned. It was most recently used by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]].
No pages should link to this file.
Another user may claim it, or it may be subject to deletion if deemed unnecessary by the community.

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)

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)

I am going to have to say that I agree. At the very least, all current guestbooks need to be moved to a subpage. Guestbooks now are just for signing them, not to show that someone reads a guestbook owners userpage. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 04:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Ben on all counts. -- Tom 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yessir. It's Dot Com hit the nail on the head. —FireBird|Talk 04:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you guys are probably right. I have to admit, I'm also guilty of owning a guestbook, but if that's what it takes to do away with this pointless fad, I'll give a vote towards getting rid of all guestbooks, including my own. Thunderbird 04:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I like signing guestbooks. I don't have one but I like signing them. About 75% of the time I do end up reading the page in question too! I hope I'm not the exception. Perhaps they can be restricted to the user's talk page? --Stux 05:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT:Agreed with everybody. Signing a guestbook doesn't say that you like that page, or that you enjoyed what they wrote. I agree with Dot com, leave a message with some thought if you want to say that you liked a user page, not put your sig on their userpage. I don't think guestbooks are bad, they're just pointless.--minibaseball.png Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 05:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
When we come to a point when (and I don't want to name names) there are two or three different guestbooks on the same userpage for no reason at all, or that there's a "guestbook race" where users race to see who could sign it first, or even when a user picks up a deadline for getting X signatures before a certian date, it's time to get rid of that fad. I hate seeing users who have more then 500 userpage and usertalk edits, but less then 20 mainspace edits. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 07:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Stux: That wouldn't make a difference. It's not about where it is, it's the fact that it clutters Recent Changes up and makes patrolling edits a nightmare. —FireBird|Talk 07:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, although guilty of signing a few. It's become not only a fad, but a competition. Who can sign the most guestbooks, who can sign the fastest, whose is longer, who can reach the most by such and such date--even who has the most. I personally wouldn't mind seeing them go. --DorianGray
That page made me agree with getting rid of them. In fact, I'm gonna go get rid of mine right now. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 03:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
{sigh} It's sad it got to this point. It's really kind of like The Geddup Noise, isn't it? We've gone from "Guestbooks used to be cool!" to "Corporate Guestbooks still suck". I hate the thought of them being banned, but it probably has gotten to that point. I'll support it. Heimstern Läufer 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Guestbooks are dying with their original creator, Bubsty. I'm taking mine out too. DBK! 04:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly who started the fad, but my money's on Smileyface11945. Both his and my guestbooks predate that of Bubsty's. Still, I think Bubsty ammased the most sigs, and I belive it was his' that influenced the inordanant influx of guestbooks. Thunderbird 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
His is gone. 24.18.208.18 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, Bubsty never started guestbooks. He said he got it from RJMT somewhere. 24.18.208.18 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Image formats

I think it's great that our new users are contributing images. Recently it seemed (st least to me) that lots of GIF and JPEG images were being uploaded that should have been PNG. As should have happened, those users were relatively quickly contacted and educated about our image policy and that most of their images really should have been PNG format. Now it seems that those conversations have created the opposite problem: images that should be JPEGs are being uploaded as PNGs. To give just the most recent example: Image:taranchulapeople.png. Should we just chalk this up to people being lazy and not reading the upload page, or should this policy be advertized more/better? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I belive PNG is in fact correct. Despite appearing to be a people pic, It is still part of the flash file, and should be treated no less than any animation. I went through this with a vetern user some time ago, but can't find the link where he explained it to me. In any case, I'm quite sure JPG is used just for images that are photos, not screenshots. Thunderbird 05:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: Found it. It was a discussion with Tom from October '04. You can find it here, but it's a big section. Here's the applicable explanation:

Hey Tom, I thought JPG format was to be used for videos and pictures, and PNG for all flash material. Plus I think the JPG looked clearer and brighter. If you really don't want it there, then I'll try another way, but I thought I read somewhere that JPG was preferable for pictures, just not for flash. Is the one JPG really that bad? Please clarify. Thanks. Thunderbird 06:30, 25 Oct 2004 (MST)

Ah ha. There's a little catch here though. We are talking about a screenshot of a movie or image, and not the actual image itself. Screenshots should always be PNGs. The only kinds of JPGs we should have are photos like Image:TheBrothersChapsBandW.jpg or Image:mattchapman.jpg. Perhaps an screenshot like Image:puppetdween.png better illustrates what I'm trying to say. -- Tom 08:35, 25 Oct 2004 (MST)

Hope that clears it up. Thunderbird 05:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Now I understand. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 07:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools