User talk:HistoricAccount Miment

From Erfwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main Page Control

ErfWiki Main Page Control Panel
This is the very top section of the main page
This is info for new users
The featured content is displayed in here
{{featured article}}
This used to be the featured article, but has since
been re-purposed to be just a list of tasks.
{{Latest Update}}
Change this to reflect the latest update
{{Latest Update/page}} controls the image.
Change this to change the Improvement Drive
Change this to change the Did You Know section

Sand box with the main page code on User:Miment/Main before making changes... But be careful! The content for the main page comes from the above templates, not the main page code itself.


So, I noticed you added a statbox for Gobwin Knob, and one of the stats is "Regent: Parson". I'm curious as to what this is supposed to mean. Stanley still rules in the city, and Parson isn't exactly Chief Warlord either... is this just "who is going around looking at things to make them work"? Menlo Marseilles 14:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basicly the idea.
I edited it to "city manager". There is a Hyatt Regency. --Raphfrk 22:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The position is called "Regent". I doubt people would get the two confused. You should change the text output back. No sense in changing the input too.Miment 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Where does it say that? There is no reference to the title on LIAB Prologue 14 (unless I missed it). If it is the official title, then sorry about that and I can change it back. Otherwise, I think it would be better to have a unique name for the function and city manager seems reasonable. --Raphfrk 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Strange, I remember reading it somewhere, but not where. The wiki page on regent says "A Regent Warlord is a warlord who rather than being a military commander, has special administrative bonuses when managing a city." Well, City Manager works, Regent works, it all works. ;P Miment 21:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That page doesn't have any links either (and is marked as speculation). I have posted a question on the author of that page's talk page. --Raphfrk 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, received a response, the reference is from TBFGK Epilogue 13, it says that "The city had a regent warlord named Al Frappacino". It is 100%, but seems reasonable that the title is for warlords who are in charge of cities.--Raphfrk 23:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty then, I'm gonna go ahead and change back the template. Oh wait, nevermind. I see it's been done already. Miment 03:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit links on the front page

I commented on this on the main page talk page --Raphfrk 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


The bastards are relentless. Are you considering adding in some more anti-spam measures? I know there's the calculation check, but maybe you need an image instead or in addition. --Charles 04:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is nuts! Harknell hasn't logged into the forum since the 8th of January, but hopefully Rob will see our posts and inform him or something. --Charles 04:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Already PMed him just asking him to let Harknell know. CCed yourself and Harknell in on it. Great work you've been doing to clear the spam out by the way. --Charles 04:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles has given you a fortune cookie. Inside it reads: "I bow before the master wielder of the Banhammer"

Good work, the banning on links to external sites is a good call as well. We don't link the direct comic all that often. Some of the Real World References, sure but we can survive without that until something is installed. --Charles 00:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a query, but does it make it easier for you if I put the user into the spammer category through their main page or through their talk/discussion page? I'm just noticing that you're generally putting them in the "Banned" Category on their talk/discussion page. --Charles 01:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll start putting the Spammer category in their talk page. I think we have a heap of users with a talk page linked into the "Banned" category and a main page still linking to the Spammer page, so its difficult to distinguish who you've already banned from the list sorry. Would you like me to clear the pages of users you've already banned or let you delete them? --Charles 01:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get a temporary promotion to admin, just to help with wielding the banhammer? Or am I more useful helping out with tagging the spammers and their pages for deletion? -- No one in particular 04:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I reckon we need more Bureaucrats and I'd put Miment down as the first in line for position as one. Beyond that, there should be another group created which can delete pages and give, at least, temporary banishments to Ip addresses and regular users. Maybe even edit protected pages. But the special thing would be that Admins can promote regular users to the group. You don't just need Bureaucrats --Charles 04:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • This is getting ridiculous. Any word on the image recognition filters yet? --No one in particular 07:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So, um, not that I'm complaining, but when did I earn the privelege of deleting spam? Happy to do so, but if it's an error... Jorgath 15:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Man, I took a peek at the Recent Changes, and it is all spam fighting. I was pulling my hair out on my own wiki with that, so I can totally empathize. Just dropping you a note to say thanks for your hard work grappling with the bad guys -- it is much appreciated! --Cayzle 12 March 2011

What Cayzle said, our compliments. How hard is it to stop new accounts from creating pages, for 5 days and/or 20 edits or something? That's what they do on Wikipedia, and it would clearly be a big help here. --GRuban 12:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, this is really bad. You're doing an impressive job. It must be really tempting to just block all user accounts as soon as they're made. :-) --GRuban 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooh! Nice tag-team hit!CIHN

I noticed they're all 8 character user names, starting with a capital letter, then 7 lower case letters. Is there some kind of automated filter you can put in so you don't wear out your ban hammer? --GRuban 20:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gruben that You have done a Yeoman's effort in fighting spam. On behalf of this wiki-ian thank you greatly. 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back mate, you've been sorely missed. We've got a new captcha called KittenAUTH for URL insertion as well as account creation and anon edits/creations. That plust the new MediaWiki:SpamBlacklist seems to be keeping them at bay. --Charles 12:00, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Page deletion request

In making panel descriptions I somehow inadvertently popped LIAB 56:12\/Description. Mind disbanding it? --GRuban 13:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --GRuban 15:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


Note, while #32 was linked as the first Hamstard comic, the site also has a few additional PNG strips (comic 1, 2, 11, 13, 18, 25, 26, and 27) not linked - as if Parson had draft strips that he uploaded but didn't publicly post. They probably should be uploaded, but I'm not sure how they should be linked in with the others. Abb3w 20:17, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

Hmmmmm... interesting. I'll upload them an list them in numeric order, after 53. (So it'll be 53, 1, 2, 11,...) Either that, or I'll dump em all in a gallery :PMiment 21:48, 28 May 2011 (EDT)


Hmmm. Tried to make a new user to see what changed. KittenAuth is now required for all new users! So I bet that's why spammer accounts are waaayyyy down. Though there are so many attempted registrations that sooner or later they'll squeeze a user through and I bet that's what happend here with Pilamy. Miment 14:36, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

KittenAuth seems to have been required for a while; since May 30 or so. Schmuck registrations (though no SPAM edits) have continued since then, but now paused. So... probably no. Perhaps the bot gives up after a fortnight of fighting KittenAuth? Perhaps there have been further security tweaks by the Bureaucrat to make KittenAuth more universal than my initial tests indicated? Perhaps the bot has been given an upgrade in incompetence? I dunno. Regardless, it seems the SpamWar's Turn has turned. Again. Abb3w 00:09, 17 June 2011 (EDT)