3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
: How about creating If someone sends me a simple field like "Write `Context' in patch against the textbox" for registerationcurrent mediawiki software... It will make I'd be happy to apply it slightly more difficult for to this wiki. BTW: I have blocked the IP-address from where the botslast stupid edits came from (thanks, and is not too difficult to implement --[[User:Adityam|Aditya]]Taco, for reverting all those edits). (69.205.189.198)
:: There are two options (1) Do not allow user to change anything without loggin in. One can create a pretty vague loginid if someone sends me a patch against the current mediawiki softwarehe/she wants to remain anonymous.See [http://test.wikipedia. I'd be happy org/wiki/Main_Page] You need to apply it create an account to this wikichange data and ceate new account gives you a captcha. BTW: I do not have blocked the IP-address any experience of managing wikimedia. But from where the last stupid edits came from (thankswhat I have read on its documentations, Taco, for reverting all those it is possible to disable anonymous edits)[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Preventing_Access#Disable_anonymous_edits]. However this goes against the spirit of wikis in general. (692) When a person has not logged in, give him a captcha or a value to fill in a form.205This should be doable manually.189The easiest way that I can think of is to check the word with javascript before actually submitting data.198Another way can be to check it within the php script (Don't know enough php to see how to do this).
::: There are two options (1) Do not allow user So my question basically boils down to change anything without loggin inthis. One can create a pretty vague loginid if he/she wants to remain Is disabling anonymous. See [http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page] You need to create an account to change data post and ceate new account gives you requiring login (with a captcha. I do not have any experience of managing wikimedia. But from what I have read on its documentations, it is possible to disable anonymous edits [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Preventing_Access#Disable_anonymous_edits]. However this goes against the spirit of wikis in general.(2) When a person has not logged inan option? If so, give him a captcha or a value to fill I will play around with authentication in webforms a form. This should be doable manually. The easiest way that I can think of is to check the word little and get back with javascript before actually submitting data. Another way can be to check it within the php script (Don't know enough php to see how to do this)more specific suggestions.--[[User:Adityam|Aditya]]
::: So my question basically boils down Actually, I went through all the recent changes, and it was vandalism rather than spam. I do not think that there is any way to this. Is disabling anonymous post and requiring login (with stop a captcha) not an option? If so, I will play around with authentication in webforms delibrate deletion of content by a little and get back with more specific suggestionsuser. --[[User:Adityam|Aditya]]
:::: Actually, I went through all In forum software it is not abnormal to see a system where the recent changesfirst X posts of a user require approval by a moderator. That would work nicely against this sort of vandalism, and it was vandalism rather than spam. but I do not think have even a remote idea how that there is any way to stop would work out on a delibrate deletion of content by a userwiki.[[User:Taco|Taco]]
::::: In forum software it Somehow I still think that the best solution is not abnormal to see a system where continue using the first X posts of a user require approval by a moderatorspam-blacklist and manual vandalism reverting. That would work nicely against In my opinion, this sort of vandalism, but I do is not have even a remote idea how that would work out on much of a wikideal. --[[User:TacoPatrick Gundlach|Tacopg]]
→Spam problem
== Spam problem ==
How about creating a simple field like "Write `Context' in the textbox" for registeration. It will make it slightly more difficult for the bots, and is not too difficult to implement --[http[User://blog.eukhost.com/index.php?s=spam+assassin Spam AssassinAdityam|Aditya]]
[http:::::: Somehow I still think that the best solution is to continue using the spam-blacklist and manual vandalism reverting//blog.eukhost. In my opinion, this is not that much of a dealcom/index. --[[User:Patrick Gundlach|pg]php?s=spam+assassin Spam Assassin]
== GIFs ==
