User talk:Solar Dragon/Archive 27

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

So, these tab templates...

How much are you changing and what exactly are you changing? ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 07:46, November 30, 2013 (EST)

TabR, TabA, TabC, TabG, TabQ -> Tab. gags = yes -> gags. quotes = no -> noquotes. |

| Talk | Contributions | Edit count | 08:44, November 30, 2013 (EST)

Wikisimpsons christmas logo

Hi Solar! I put the Wikisimpsons christmas logo, but the page still continues with the normal logo. So please, fix the problem. --BTony70099 (talk) 15:37, December 1, 2013 (EST)

The main logo is from a different source and Jake has to change it himself, along with the skin. Jake's been fairly busy with college recently so he hasn't had time to get the Christmas skin up but he should do in the next few days. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 17:22, December 1, 2013 (EST)

Question...

Excuse, me I have just started an official account. How can I get clearance to edit a semi-protected article? Do I have to wait a few days, I've already done 10 edits.--Spare-tire (talk) 21:55, December 1, 2013 (EST)

You have to wait a set number of days after making a certain number of edits. Both are undisclosed to try and stop users making random crappy edits that do nothing just to get the ability to edit semi-protected articles. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 05:02, December 3, 2013 (EST)

How many days? --Spare-tire (talk) 16:19, December 3, 2013 (EST)

Did you actually read the comment I wrote? I said it's undisclosed to stop users making random crappy edits. The Solar Dragon 16:31, December 3, 2013 (EST)

That's the point, I don't intend to do that. I should be allowed access to all pages having an authorized account. --Spare-tire (talk) 16:48, December 3, 2013 (EST)

Well, when I say "undisclosed", truth is, it's so undisclosed that I don't even know what it is. :P I think it's either 5, 7 or 10 days though. Not sure which one, if any, is correct. The Solar Dragon 16:50, December 3, 2013 (EST)

Spam users

You know the users that keep registering and put really strange/in-depth personal information on their user pages? I have reasons to believe they are spammers. Surely no-one would reveal such personal info on a wiki, one user page I came across posted an in-depth address. What do you think? ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 11:48, December 7, 2013 (EST)

They're spammers, all right. We've been blocking them and deleting the pages if they post anything with an off-the-wall link in it. If you come across one posting PII such as a street address, go ahead and slap a Speedy Delete tag on it and it'll get the same treatment. -- Mythigator (talk) 12:08, December 7, 2013 (EST)

Yep. Spammers. Unfortunately, there's no way to permanently stop these unless they release their regex accidentally. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 14:10, December 7, 2013 (EST)

I just had a thought related to our spammer asshole. It looks the user count under the wiki stats includes EVERYTHING. Is there any of fine-tuning that count so that we don't have the spam-hole inflating the numbers? If that count could be tweaked to exclude blocked accounts and those that have never made a contribution, that should eliminate all of the spam accounts, and hopefully give the spam-hole one less incentive for continuing with his crap. -- Mythigator (talk) 14:50, December 15, 2013 (EST)

Tried to limit it to autoconfirmed but the code doesn't work for some reason so I emailed Jake. Hopefully get this set up by tomorrow. {{NUMBERINGROUP:autoconfirmed}} should do it but isn't for some reason, only returning 0. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 15:03, December 15, 2013 (EST)

Good thing I make a practice of looking closely at the entries on the Recent Changes page. For a second I thought that Petrovichnyamilelenkossarian was the work of our spammer. :-D -- Mythigator (talk) 19:27, December 17, 2013 (EST)

Well, the name in yellow next to it should have given you a hint. :P Oh, Jake said that what I was trying to do is not possible and he can't think of a way to do it. The Solar Dragon 03:55, December 18, 2013 (EST)

It's possible that at some point we can do a user cleanup to remove the spammers, but I'll need to write up a script to weed out the spammers from legitimate users and then remove all of their information from the database. At this point, I'd say it's not very high priority and I'd rather focus on other site improvements first. --Ja ke 12:12, December 18, 2013 (EST)

Old Money

Again, hello, how are you? Watch that episode and Grampa is at Nighthawk Diner. 24.141.5.202 12:39, December 8, 2013 (EST)

Nope. Grampa was at a parody of the painting Nighthawks. It's a different parody of the same painting. The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 12:41, December 8, 2013 (EST)

What does "a parody" mean? Are you saying Rex Banner is at different diner that also a reference to Nighthawks or because Grampa is just a short visual gag as opposed to the entire scene with Rex, Eddie, Lou and then Barney makes it different? Again, how is it a different diner in "Old Money" then having the exact same diner be shown again in "Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment"? In The Simpsons universe there's a diner that we've at least twice which is a reference to Nighthawks painting, that those references are for the "Behind the Laughter" section, but the article is suppose to written a real place to The Simpsons and Grampa and Rex Banner are at the same place and Springfield has two diners that look the same even down the building across the street? 24.141.5.202 12:47, December 8, 2013 (EST)

1) Please do not change talk page comments after posting them. It makes conversations confusing. 2) After finally loading up the episode and finding the scene, which took a lot longer than it should have, I played "spot the difference" with the two. The main difference is that there are seats by the windows in the later episode and not "Old Money". However, I have added it to the article. The Solar Dragon 13:13, December 8, 2013 (EST)

Well, the Simpsons house changes all the time (mostly for the need of a gag which is also what happened since Rex Banner has to be at the window to sham it and grab Barney), but it doesn't make it a different house. To be fair, you didn't add it, I did. You toke it away comrade ;) I get you had to take the time to look at the episode, but couldn't you have just done that first before removing it and arguing against it. Anyhow, thanks for double checking. 24.141.5.202 13:29, December 8, 2013 (EST)

Yeah, as I've said before, and other users have too, IPs are generally treated worse than logged in users. They usually have their edits rollbacked first, questions asked later. I would again suggest that you make an account to allow other users, and me, to take you more seriously. ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 13:36, December 8, 2013 (EST)

Spam accounts

I have reasons to believe all the red-link accounts registered this past half-day are spam accounts: one, they probably would have made edits by now. Two, I recognize some of the names (well, one, to be honest) I believe something needs to be put in place (a few Simpsons questions, for example), when someone registers an account. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 08:12, December 28, 2013 (EST)

I would also like to add the fact that most of them have spam account-like names. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 08:19, December 28, 2013 (EST)

Not sure how it could affect this, but maybe putting in a recaptcha also, if we don't. -- Webkinz ManiaTalkContributionsEditcount 10:18, December 28, 2013 (ESTy

We already have a very advanced captcha system in place which is required for all non-autoconfirmed users to do before saving edits. We don't know what else to try at the moment. ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 11:02, December 28, 2013 (EST)

I know this sounds VERY cruel, but what about automatically blocking/deleting accounts that had not made an edit in the past 12-24 hours since its registration. Some spam accounts don't edit for a few days after their registration, some maybe a few minutes after. This could wipe out and prevent a lot of spam. If these spammers continue to do their business here, I believe we'll have to have an official wiki discussion. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 11:12, December 28, 2013 (EST)

Spam protection

Why is web.archive.org in the spam protection filter? I'm trying to put an address with that in my revised The Simpsons Archive page. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 13:43, December 28, 2013 (EST)

Spam IPs

Hi Solar, I've just noticed that this IP has been doing vandalism: 156.34.199.194 !!

Please could you block it or something????, thank you!!!!!!!!! / Loco87 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:30 December 29, 2013 (EST)

I put a warning on the IP's talk page. Next offense will result in a block. -- Mythigator (talk) 20:24, December 29, 2013 (EST)