|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
| | [http://www.gb-x.de/gbuch.php?forum_id=76255 free black gay pictures] | | [http://www.gb-x.de/gbuch.php?forum_id=76255 free black gay pictures] |
| | | | |
| − | == spammers ==
| + | I just don't have much to say lately. |
| | + | Eh. Not much on my mind lately. |
| | | | |
| − | I think I know how to dramatically reduce the amount of linkspam on the website i think if the administrators on this site protect pages that are frequently spammed such as [[Open Circuits talk:Community Portal]] that will reduce the amount of spam on this site because the spammers will not be able to edit those pages.--[[User:71.234.233.163|71.234.233.163]] 08:21, 2 June 2007 (PDT)
| + | [http://coastersnta.www2.prexon.nl/ old and young lesbians] | |
| − | | + | [http://suite.bb-fr.com lesbian squirting] | |
| − | :I just signed up a few minutes ago and noticed that there seems to be a lot of linkspam being placed by unregistered users. I don't want to exclude folk, but would only allowing registered users to edit cut down some of the spam? [[User:Autarch|Autarch]] 09:53, 13 June 2007 (PDT)
| + | [http://parolee7.megabb.com sharon stone lesbian] | |
| − | | + | [http://www.guestbook.at/gb/gast/index.php?buchid=brownshr5 lesbian toes] |
| − | ::You are right.
| |
| − | ::Certainly that is one way to cut down on spam, and perhaps I will be forced to do that soon.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Another way, as you can see from [[Special:Ipblocklist]], I've been banning a bunch of anonymous spammers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :But is there another, better way to reduce spam?
| |
| − | | |
| − | :I want to avoid a problem I am starting to notice.
| |
| − | :Sometimes I see a tiny little typo or technopropisms or some other tiny little thing that I could easily fix
| |
| − | :( http://communitywiki.org/WhyWikiWorks ).
| |
| − | :But someone has built a huge barrier that prevents me from helping.
| |
| − | :We want a system in a way that makes it very easy for anyone to help us.
| |
| − | :Certainly too much spam is leaking through just now, but I don't want to go to the opposite extreme and make people go through a big complicated procedure in order to improve a schematic or fix a typo.
| |
| − | :--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 21:39, 21 June 2007 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::That's a very noble way of thinking. I also like to be able to edit anonymously... There are enough sites you have to register for already. --SebDE
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::I know how to greatly reducethe amount of spam without stopping anomyomus ips from editing you can install a spam filter [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Spam_filter like the one at my website EvoWiki] we usually dont get much spam at EvoWiki because we have a spam filter.--[[User:71.234.233.163|71.234.233.163]] 15:01, 22 June 2007 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::Indeed, a black list based on words is the way to go here. BTW this seems to be an extension you need to install from [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SpamBlacklist_extension there]
| |
| − | :::And an easy way to monitor for spam can help, too. The spam cops around here might want to check out those [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Editing_tools wiki editing tools] ;) --SebDE
| |
| − | ::::Bummer, they recently moved the BalckList Extension to the Extension namespace http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SpamBlacklist
| |
| − | ::::Anyways, if you've problem with installing that or in doubt of maintaining - I run several mediawikis for private use and am quite advanced with regexes, although only very simple ones are needed for the BlackList.
| |
| − | ::::--SebDE
| |
| − | :::::Well I just digged through the code of the Extension and spotted a spam filter option that is already there in the MediaWiki software. It would involve edititing the configuration for any new spam pattern, tough. --SebDE
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Anonymous Edits?'''
| |
| − | Aloha from Honolulu David,
| |
| − | I just got an email saying my page had been edited by an anonymous user. I don't know who this is, there is nothing his/her page. I would not be complainig if the edits had improved things, but all they did was delete information. Perhaps it is their sense of humor.
| |
| − | I am glad there is the record of changes made, so I can try to recover what was removed. Just to let you know that apparently spammers are not all you have to worry about.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Roger
| |
| − | [[User:RogerAF|RAF]] 05:58, 9 July 2007 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | P. S.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I just finished replacing what had been rmoved. Again, I'm grateful for the changes records. I also left a note to whoever did it. I think possibly it was unintentional. I hope that's the case.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It occurred to me that perhaps editing should not be allowed by anonymous users. Perhaps there could be a special page that allowed anonimity, but require identification from anyone who wants to perform edits on pages that others have posted.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I don't know how you'd acomplish it. I'm just a bit po'd that this can happen. He could have easily deleted the whole page. I'm glad it was easy to repair, but I will be moving come the middle of August and I may not have email for a week or two, possibly longer. So if something like this happened then, I would not know for some time. Then it would be a problem. Forgive my rant, but see my point? I'll leave it at that and check back later.
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[User:RogerAF|RAF]] 06:23, 9 July 2007 (PDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | I'm sorry that your page was damaged.
| |
| − | Certainly, blocking "ip users" would have stopped this particular problem.
| |
| − | But is there a better solution?
| |
| − | One that doesn't force people to go through a "identification process" before fixing a little typo?
| |
| − | --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 14:45, 9 July 2007 (PDT)
| |
| − | :Yes, there is, I already posted this. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SpamBlacklist
| |
| − | :4 simple steps:
| |
| − | :* Create an article for spam phrases -- I'll pop up more often (even create an account) and help maintaining this list ;)
| |
| − | :* Protect this Article against anonymous edits
| |
| − | :* Install the Extension
| |
| − | :* Configure the extension to use the just created Article (in this example [[spam blacklist]]):
| |
| − | <pre>
| |
| − | require_once( "$IP/extensions/SpamBlacklist/SpamBlacklist.php" );
| |
| − | $wgSpamBlacklistFiles = array(
| |
| − | "DB: $wgDBname spam_blacklist",
| |
| − | );
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | :--SebDE
| |
| | | | |
| | == OpenCircuits Guideline == | | == OpenCircuits Guideline == |
My mind is like a fog.
I don't care.
That's how it is.
free live naked mature men |
anal pics mature slut xxx |
free mature pussy galleries |
girdle mature ladies
Very good web site
Great work and thank you for your service
Bob
young teens gay dicks |
free gay chatrooms |
free gay teen porn |
free black gay pictures
I just don't have much to say lately.
Eh. Not much on my mind lately.
old and young lesbians |
lesbian squirting |
sharon stone lesbian |
lesbian toes
OpenCircuits Guideline
Here is a rewritten guidline as per your request. It may need some polishing:
... moved to We love volunteers ...
User_talk:Freqmax
Start the page Guideline ..?
I think that's great. We might want a "guideline" page someday, but for now I'm going to stick it over into "We love volunteers". --DavidCary 00:44, 3 August 2007 (PDT)
Delete object
Can you delete this? Freqmax 05:50, 31 July 2007 (PDT)
Spam
Do you have adminstrative priviligies?, anyway I have summerized the spammers ip here and noticed, that the same networks. And esp same edit comment and content tend to stay the same. It would benefitial to be able to block these rougue networks and aswell block submission of any page that contains these phrases in their edit summary. Or spammer links.
I'm a "sysop" now.
I've banned a bunch of individual IPs,
but I hope that fine-tuning the "$wgSpamRegex" will not only save me time, but also avoid annoying people sincerely trying to help.
(Please use the Sandbox to post words/phrases/URLs that ought to go into the "$wgSpamRegex").
- Amen to that.
And I see that someone recently installed the
Special:Contributions/Spam cleanup script
on 30 July 2007.
I'm guessing that's the same
script that Tim Starling wrote.
--DavidCary 01:23, 3 August 2007 (PDT)
- Well, as with the banning of IPs, the spam problem could be adressed earlier, so it not even appears in the history. $wgSpamRegex is the better choice in my opinion. I'll come up with a regex somewhen this weekend or so ;)
I suggest that ip blocks (see Spammer ip) like 217.141.249.0/24 (Interbusiness Italy) are used for any ip that spam on sight. And that users from such address blocks are blocked from doing any edits. But may create a user account and then edit. This is due that most spam is made from accountless ip addresses. This will allow everybody to still edit while preventing most spam. Maybe it could be made possible for people without sysop access to add ip-ban?
Freqmax 11:55, 12 August 2007 (PDT)
- Did it came to your mid that this might not be the ultimative solution to a spam problem? Did it ever occur to you that the same kind of spam comes from (regional) totally independent IP ranges? Have you noticed that spam can origin virtually everywhere? Do you want to block every IP in the internet? :)
- I have noticed that certain countries like China, Russia, Italy etc.. tend to be overrepresented. And ofcourse one should block ranges not individual IPs. Other than that pattern matching (regex) is proberbly the way. Most spam seems to contain full qualified links to domains that tend to reoccour. My hope is we can improve such that we don't need spend so much time on cleaning up.
- Wow, this spam is getting quite nasty. I'm all for openess and such, but perhaps it's time to change the settings so only verified users can make edits. I'd rather spend my time designing a nifty new circuit than removing spam. Spam me if I've suggested the unthinkable.--Yzf600 17:25, 28 August 2007 (PDT)
- Indeed, if you want to enable anonymous editing, you have to use advanced spam fighting methods. This site is of no use in the current state. --SebDE
- Yes, this spam is nasty. The $wgSpamRegex seems to be broken today -- sorry. I hope this gets fixed soon. --DavidCary 23:31, 30 August 2007 (PDT)
