User talk:Leucosticte

Spam filter help

You're a wizzo on MW - can you help me with a spam filter problem please? I'm getting The following text is what triggered our spam filter: https://secure when trying to edit an article (though I thought that sysops should be able to automatically by-pass spam filters). I've tried editing our MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, but without success. Any clues? TIA Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My regex-fu isn't very good, unfortunately. Leucosticte (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sean: Could you give the url you are adding? (without the "https://", so it won't trigger the url blacklist) --YiFei | talk 03:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

YiFei, sorry for the late reply, the (non-secure) url is http://secure.travellerspoint.com - it is for the Travellerspoint wiki.

Yikes - even the non-https url is blocked by the spam filter — The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://secure – try using 'nowikii', hope I can save this edit! Thanks in advance :)))) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 22:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

http://secure.travellerspoint.com is now whitelisted. The problem belongs to "cure" part, but I cannot find the cause easily in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or meta-wiki:Spam_blacklist --YiFei | talk 14:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Article or cat?

here: WikiIndex talk:Community portal#Template:Inactive. You support the keeping of articles, but the discussion is about the keeping of category tags in articles or keeping articles about currently dead Wikis in categories. Please be precise in what You advocate.Manorainjan (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

LogoLinking

Do You have an opinion on that? Please place Your vote on this. Manorainjan (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Would You please explain precisely why You can not support Option 1 or 2?Manorainjan (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm just wondering about the details of implementation. Leucosticte (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Did You miss his demonstration on what the Bot is about to do? 10 test edits? Manorainjan (talk)

Why is it not using link= Leucosticte (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please for clarity's sake give a full example of what You mean. Manorainjan (talk)

What if we did it like this instead? Leucosticte (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to have the logo (which is uploaded here, and contains any necessary copyright or author info) link to the off-site wiki; when you have a clearly visible 'external link' right next to the logo? Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think the typical user would like or expect to happen when they click on a logo? You might be right, though; I notice that on Wikipedia, even on the main page, when you click an image it takes you to the image page, not the article that the image is about. On the other hand, if you click the logos at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#Wikipedia.27s_sister_projects it takes you to the wiki, rather than the image page for the logo. Leucosticte (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is another discussion! Like here: WikiIndex talk:Community portal#Endless discussions .2F.2F useful work

First the deviations from the common path need to be corrected. Then, after cleaning this and possibly other alterations, new features like the one You suggest, can be implemented by one run of another bot. If we would run a bot now to change the way the click on the logo would lead to, the current deviations might be exempted, creating more diversity in the way things are handled. Sooner or later bot constructions would have to handle a quite confusing amount of exemptions for the tiniest tasks.

Right now it is about how the page links to the logo file, not where the click on the logo leads to. If You call for 'endless' discussion, the linking question will be delayed and Your suggestion would rather not be dealt with at all, because after the finalising of the linking question I would not push Your idea to decision and You have to promote Your advanced cause yourself after everybody got enough of 'endless' discussions already. You may be thinking to make Your life easier by jumping on my train, but I will say You got no ticket and You will end in a place where You did not want to and would have to go back first. ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to do two edits. The bot can envision what the page will look like after making the first edit (rather than actually making that first edit) and then figure out what the second edit would be, and then do it all in one edit. Leucosticte (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ignore what I told and see what happens ...Manorainjan (talk)

Template

Why don't You use that template yourself? Manorainjan (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi Nathan, I was just emptying out Category:Pages for deletion and I noticed some of your own images which you nominated for deletion. However, the first one I clicked on is still being used on an existing article! If I do delete this (or any other used image) the article it was being used on will then go into a maintenance category for missing images. Perhaps you can review your reqested deletions, and amend any articles currently using them. Thanks :)) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, done. Thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we can read: "Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not in actual fact hold. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another.[1][2] In Moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles.[3]" In how far is Your behaviour different from that? Please elaborate that on the example that You speak of founding Inclupedia and in deed try Your best to erase all traces of Your former fiancée from all over the internet. Manorainjan (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Even you agreed to delete one of those pages. So why not the others? Leucosticte (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is imagined. I did not agree. My conclusion there was and is: "Therefore my call is for hiding this entry until verified contact was made to her and her own intentions about this entry are known". Prior I said "Therefore I could see it as in the interest of the original author (Augustine) that those results of the breaches would be removed." I'm not surprised that You count that as agreement to delete. I wonder what she told You when You 'asked' her if the unpermitted publishing of her striptease would be ok? Maybe she answered like: "I think it is not so bad." But surely You can not remember the wording now any more, like all the unpleasant stuff. I used conditional. Conditional is not a yes. Conditional is clearly and unmistakeably a 'no', until the condition is met. The condition is not yet met. And even if the condition is met, it is not automatically a 'yes' until the condition is clearly defined as the only condition. I thought You are kind of fit in programming. But that has shown as a wrong supposition. Now, what I was insinuating under the not yet met condition, was not the deletion of the page, it was my sympathetic feelings for 'them' or their supposed (not actual) intention: "see it as in the interest of the original author (Augustine)". To call this my agreement is far from being true. Maybe You got too much experience with persuasion that You can see clearly any more? Manorainjan (talk)

narrowing down the problem with email verification

I (Manorainjan ;-) assume, that Your account is email-verified. Please add the domain part of Your email to this Table of results so that we can see more clearly, which servers work and which not.

Banns

You seam to have rich experiences with banning of standard offer requests Was there a reason given in You case? Had there been warning? Manorainjan

It's a very convoluted situation, and at this point the proceedings have become pretty opaque. It is, after all, an ArbCom case, and not one of the formal, publicly-adjudicated litigations either, but the kind that they discuss on their private email list. Leucosticte (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)