User talk:

From OpenCircuits
Revision as of 09:23, 12 August 2007 by (talk)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dear "",

Welcome to Open Circuits.

Thank you for categorizing this extremely miscellaneous collection of pages.

Most of the categories you used have good, easy-to-understand names. The "Category:AFD" is a bit vague. Does it mean something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ?

Please consider "creating" an account. (It's fine to use a pseudonym. You don't even need to give an email address).

Thank you again. I hope you enjoy posting a little bit of what you know, and improving others postings. I hope you enjoy reading what others have posted.

--DavidCary 21:16, 25 June 2007 (PDT)

Indeed, AFD is for pages which serve no real purpose and could be deleted. Isn't really true for the Talk page, I just didn't noticed the namespace. Unless one or an other spam fighting method is in place it seems quite useless to restore Talk pages, since most have no real content anyways.
Yes yes, I'm considering... But as I can use a static IP for the edits and don't know yet if I'll stick around for long I'll leave it that way for a while. Just because I can :)

Did I mention that I prefer naming pages with "singular" (no "s"), not "plural" (with the "s") names? That makes it easier to refer to those pages. In particular, I wish we had a [[category:component]], rather than a [[category:components]]. Is it too late to fix? (See C2:WikiNamePluralProblem for details).

You don't usually refer to categories in the text, so that problem don't really exist. While you're writing about a Component or Components you don't refer to the Category but a seperate Article (that may or may not refer to the Category). "Fixing" that would involve renaming every Category tag. --SebDE

I just went through Category:AFD and deleted all the pages that have never been anything but spam throughout their history. Thank you for your help. --DavidCary 20:20, 20 July 2007 (PDT)

When you revert spam, would you mind either hitting the "undo" button in the diff display, or saying something in the Summary about "rv"? That helps me see what's going on in RecentChanges. Thank you for your anti-spam activity. --DavidCary 20:52, 8 August 2007 (PDT)

What certainly would help a lot more is not to have that much spam in the first place.
I wouldn't be that "radical" if there wasn't that much to take care of ;)
My latest addon to the wgSpamRegex might be the key. I had to think a while to sei a pattern in the last spam that could be blocked, but in the end it's all about a little creativity :)
If the spam is finally handled in an effective way there is hope that we all can focus on more important things...
blocking IPs is useful to stop an imediate or ongoing spam attack from some IPs -- never saw that here in notable extend
protecting pages is useful to stop vandalism of one and the same page over and over (>8) -- never saw that here
blocking certain spam phrases is useful to block distributed spam attacks (from different IPs) on different pages -- saw hat a lot here

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.