As per my other suggestion, perhaps it would be better to completely remove the Marks/Logo page altogether and just have a link at the bottom of each Brand/Maker's page to the Pipephil website for that particular Brand or Maker? --Frank - 3/26/09
- Sure, that would work fine too. The advantage of the Marks/Logo page, assuming it were to get flushed out eventually, is for situations where someone is trying to identify a pipe with some sort of logo without knowing the maker. Regardless, I think relevant off site links should be added at the bottom of each article directly. --sethile 15:41, 26 March 2009 (CDT)
- Lacking a Name Stamp, being able to identify a pipe from it's Logo alone would be useful. Pipephil does have a means of searching with criteria such as a Star or an Anchor or a Dot, etc., but it is lacking a couple of such criteria to search by, last I checked.--Frank - 3/26/09
Scott, Earlier on I checked on that item in Cyrillic that you deleted. I found a translation, and it is pipe related..--Frank - 4/13/09
- Thanks, Frank! I put it back. I wondered about that.. I was a little on the delete button ;) --sethile 21:18, 13 April 2009 (CDT)
Notice for you
This thing needs a bit of scouring just to make it palatable to educated folk! C'mon, this is just lazy. I say "c'mon" because this is the talk page. The entry itself ought to be perfectly written, not sounding like a letter to a dopey pal in Wisconsin!Thundersnow 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)--A direct quote off the Tobacco page. It really needs work, that.Thundersnow 00:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Bridge Too Far?
QUOTE FROM ME: "Hello Eric, Thanks for your work on the Tobacco article. Yes, it does need a lot of work! Also, it would be great if you can help with the Savinellis article. In short, whatever you have time for would be most welcome in deed--I really appreciate your help! All the best, --sethile 01:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC) [....]
Uhm, I do not know any Eric except an old colleague. And I must say that it is just plain wrong to try to do that to a contributor who wished to remain known by username. And by the way, I am Rev. Antonio Hernandez.Thundersnow 03:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)"
Well, thanks a lot for this unwanted headache.Thundersnow 03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since the email address (EricBlair@disciples.com), which you publicly posted, gave the name as Eric Blair, it was an understandable mistake on Scott's part, as he could hardly be aware that you use someone elses email address. I believe he was only trying to be friendly on a first name basis. Accusing him of "outing" you in such a heartless manner is a mean thing to do, since he obviously did not do it to deliberately "expose" you.
- As you obviously aren't aware of the tremendous scope of this website, let me enlighten you of the fact that the vast majority of the design, information and contributions have been due to Scott's hard work. Furthermore, he is always extremely appreciative of corrections and contributions to the website.
- Considering that you don't even know one iota about Scott, I find your jumping to conclusions about him offensive in the extreme. I also find your tone and attitude particularly rude and belligerent, especially as you claim to be a man of the cloth. - Frank 07:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Frank! For what it's worth I apologized on his user talk, but apparently that was not what Thundersnow was after. He has elected to deprive us of his presence and help for the present. All the best, --sethile 23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
QuestyCaptcha not working?
I operate a wiki and I was going to install QuestyCaptcha. Can I ask, does your Aug 14th note about spam mean your Apr 13th installation of QuestyCaptcha isn't working?
Are the bots responding correctly to both questions or just one? (The "What is this wiki's name?" question is probably very common, so spambots might be configured to always stick in the wiki's name when confronted with QuestyCaptcha) If they're getting both questions right, then I guess a human actually took the time to note your questions and the correct answers, so adding a few dozen new questions is probably what's necessary.
I'd be very interested to hear more about the problem. Thanks. Ciaran 15:51, 16 August 2011 (CDT)
- I'm not sure the bots responded to either question... It may just be my QuestyCaptcha configuration needs more tweaking. I installed it when I had a bunch of spam that appeared to use humans to make registered users in spite of using ReCaptcha (about 5 to 10 per day), and than that info seemed to be plugged into bots that used the registration information to spam. QuestyCaptcha shut that attack down. I had some new bot yesterday that was not spamming links, just junk. Looked like maybe it attempted to put in links and when it hit QuestyCaptcha it created new articles without links, or was deleting existing content and replacing it with a line like "Great post" or something similar. Apparently edits without links does not trigger QuestyCaptcha due to my settings.
- It may be I can tighten up my QuestyCaptcha settings to catch this new stuff too. Haven't had time to play with it much. --sethile 16:20, 16 August 2011 (CDT)
- I've been reading the docs:
- ... and the comments in the source code.
- If you want all edits to require passing a captcha, change "false" to "true" in this line of nameofwiki/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php:
- $wgCaptchaTriggers['edit'] = false; // Would check on every edit
- I haven't tried it out yet, but it seems you can exempt logged in users from the captchas by setting:
- $wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['skipcaptcha'] = true;
- Or logged in users who've confirmed their email address by setting these to true in ConfirmEdit.php:
- $wgGroupPermissions['emailconfirmed']['skipcaptcha'] = true;
- $ceAllowConfirmedEmail = true;
- Thanks for the quick reply. I think I'll go ahead and install Questy for my wiki. Ciaran 16:59, 16 August 2011 (CDT)
- Thanks for the links! I've poored over those same docs too, but it's been a while. I changed the settings to allow anonymous edits again, but they will all trigger Questy while users will bypass it. To create an account triggers it though. That should take care of the bulk of the problems I've been having while still allowing anonymous edits. I guess we'll see!
- How did your Questy install go? --sethile 21:03, 16 August 2011 (CDT)
Hi. I only got it installed three days ago. (I don't have direct access to the server.)
To my great surprise, I'm still getting two or three spam edits per day:  !
I'm baffled. I've searched the Internet extensively and I can't find anyone else saying that spam gets past QuestyCaptcha. I think I'll mention this on the mediawiki.org site. Ciaran 17:48, 3 September 2011 (CDT)
- My situation here seems to have stabilized for the present, although I had a new user and subsequent spam hit yesterday, but only one, and that was the first since I tweaked my Questy settings. It was different than most of the ones I've had in the past. I think it was a human... Your experience and my recent hit may mean the humans that were hired to work ReCaptcha implementations are now working on Questy sites. That makes some sense. I don't think it's possible to set up a captcha of any kind that will defend against humans without also severely limiting your potential contributions ;(
- BTW, I hope your efforts against the Patent Trolls and other insanity with software patents proves fruitful. I heard a very interesting piece on NPR a month or so ago. Sounds like a completely out of control mess! I had no idea... --sethile 21:07, 3 September 2011 (CDT)
Dear Sethile You recieved like me a mail from these "other Gloredo" people. In my opinion there is no serious evidence for their activity in pipe making. The so called "Trademark Registration Certificate" you certainely got too has no value for me. I have to do with Chinese students and I know their degree certificate or diplom are sometimes "home made".
And for fun I made a little faux of this certificate changing "Gloredo" by "Dunhill"
see also my comment in the gloredo's Talk. I think at least the two gloredos should appear on the GLOREDO page
- Yes, I agree, and I responded in the Gloredo's talk as well. Regardless of the current status of the brand there is no reason not to include its history, which is way it is relevant... --sethile 09:38, 11 December 2012 (CST)
- But there are TWO gloredos apparently. I think this should be clear in the article, no ?
- OK, yes, I think I've got it now... I thought it was a buyout of some kind at first. What a mess!