User talk:Heeheehee: Difference between revisions

From Kolmafia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Bale
No edit summary
imported>StDoodle
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOCright}}
Didn't realize that re: ===
Didn't realize that re: ===


Line 41: Line 42:


That's a pretty frequently vandalized page which is bloody weird. Since we don't even use that page it doesn't seem obviously bad to  make it impossible for someone to edit. Sadly it will probably just make the spambot choose another more useful page to vandalize. That makes me think it would be good to unprotect the page just to sit there as a lightning rod to draw the spambot to it. Weird? Yes, but possible sensible. --[[User:Bale|Bale]] 06:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a pretty frequently vandalized page which is bloody weird. Since we don't even use that page it doesn't seem obviously bad to  make it impossible for someone to edit. Sadly it will probably just make the spambot choose another more useful page to vandalize. That makes me think it would be good to unprotect the page just to sit there as a lightning rod to draw the spambot to it. Weird? Yes, but possible sensible. --[[User:Bale|Bale]] 06:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what can be done about this... I really don't want such an artifact page around if possible, but if it's a choice between rampant vandalism and contained vandalism, whatchagonnado? If it gets used again, we should see what happens if we move the page, maybe. Or I dunno. --[[User:StDoodle|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 15:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Page was unprotected and it got vandalized again six and a half hours later! I do wonder what the spambot would have done if you hadn't unprotected it. Well, we can always just keep deleting the page... --[[User:Bale|Bale]] 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I see StDoodle has just blocked the page again. Twice a day vandalism was too much for him. I guess we'll find out what happens at a result. --[[User:Bale|Bale]] 00:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
: Hmm, will the same happen with the page's Talk? --[[User:Heeheehee|Heeheehee]] 02:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
* Good point. That page has been vandalized once. It's also protected now. --[[User:Bale|Bale]] 02:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm just taking stabs in the dark. Mostly, I was thinking that if we protect the targeted page, maybe seeing what gets targeted next will give us a clue how it works, and perhaps we can... aw screw it, I'm just reaching & annoyed. I'm really leaning toward asking fewyn to change the wiki such that only registered accounts can edit at all. --[[User:StDoodle|StDoodle (#1059825)]] 04:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:02, 23 July 2010

Didn't realize that re: ===

Probably needs a mention somewhere on here...

I DO know that I copy / pasted said code into the cli, and it didn't work...

--StDoodle 01:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, once you mentioned it, I could swear I'd run into it before, so mafia probably used to allow it... I dunno, I just work here. ;) --StDoodle 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for helping man, just one thing I'd like to request; please make sure when adding new function pages to either set the category as "Uncategorized" or add the {{flink}} short function description to the appropriate category page.

Thanks. --StDoodle (#1059825) 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to admin hood! Please try not to mess with templates unless something breaks, and remember not to block account creation on banned people (I also tend to go with 6 months). Good luck! --StDoodle (#1059825) 02:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up on things while I've been uber-busy! In my not-too-distant-future plans, I'd like to make a section on the main page for "main" mafia stuff, with a list that has main listings for each tab / window (gCLI, Adventuring, Chat, etc) & sub-listings for any nested stuff therein. IE:

  • Adventuring
    • Moods
    • Custom Combat
  • CLI
  • Gear Changer

etc.

I don't have a problem with the CLI link being in the ash section for now, just a heads up on the fact that eventually I plan to move it, once I get around to being able to work on the next "phase" of this project. --StDoodle (#1059825) 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Man, I wish I'd had free time lately; I can't wait to get back to helping on this thing again! But I wanted to drop in and say thanks for doing such awesome work while I haven't been available; you've got some nifty improvements to this place under you belt. --StDoodle (#1059825) 06:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


Consistency

I hereby dub Heeheehee, the master of Obsessive Compulsive Capitalization. It exhausts me just looking at your changelog for today. --Bale 21:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I only made the change that I did because I was linking to a section with "KolMafia" listed, and didn't want to make things difficult in the future. I figured the rest would be taken care of eventually... but damn! --StDoodle (#1059825) 22:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


(ASHRM) String Handling Routines

That's a pretty frequently vandalized page which is bloody weird. Since we don't even use that page it doesn't seem obviously bad to make it impossible for someone to edit. Sadly it will probably just make the spambot choose another more useful page to vandalize. That makes me think it would be good to unprotect the page just to sit there as a lightning rod to draw the spambot to it. Weird? Yes, but possible sensible. --Bale 06:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what can be done about this... I really don't want such an artifact page around if possible, but if it's a choice between rampant vandalism and contained vandalism, whatchagonnado? If it gets used again, we should see what happens if we move the page, maybe. Or I dunno. --StDoodle (#1059825) 15:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Page was unprotected and it got vandalized again six and a half hours later! I do wonder what the spambot would have done if you hadn't unprotected it. Well, we can always just keep deleting the page... --Bale 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see StDoodle has just blocked the page again. Twice a day vandalism was too much for him. I guess we'll find out what happens at a result. --Bale 00:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, will the same happen with the page's Talk? --Heeheehee 02:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point. That page has been vandalized once. It's also protected now. --Bale 02:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just taking stabs in the dark. Mostly, I was thinking that if we protect the targeted page, maybe seeing what gets targeted next will give us a clue how it works, and perhaps we can... aw screw it, I'm just reaching & annoyed. I'm really leaning toward asking fewyn to change the wiki such that only registered accounts can edit at all. --StDoodle (#1059825) 04:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)