User talk:Svdb: Difference between revisions

From Ultronomicon
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
response on remark on mineral types
 
(133 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
I noticed your page on [[List of Mineral Types|minerals]]. I've done a bit of galactic mining myself, and I believe that the quality modifier isn't based so much on star size as it is on temperature (which ''does'' depend on star size). There exist a few star systems out there that have a number of planets with a wide range orbits and thus a wide range of temperature. If i remember correctly, given two planets are the same type, the closer planet to a hot star can have huge deposits while the ones further one can have small deposits as long as it's at an entirely different temp. With supergiants this isn't often the case, but with smaller stars, it can be.
Old stuff moved to [[User talk:Svdb/Old]].


Also mineral size is directly related to the tonnage of the cargo. I'd have to play the game again to be sure of the exazt numbers but it was something like 1-10 tons is small, 11-15 tons is normal-sized, 16-20 is large, and >20 is frickin' huge.
== Spambots back ==


:I got my information directly from the source code. I'm pretty sure it's accurate.
It looks like they started in earnest right after the massive creation of spam pages by a single user. Any chance that the small internal change to the ConfirmEdit extension that you did last year to thwart the automated spambot scripts somehow got undone when the "mass delete" option got added? --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] ([[User talk:Fyzixfighter|talk]]) 03:58, 3 October 2014 (CEST)
:And both the actual tonnage and the mineral size are derived from the same intermediate number, as the text says.
 
:If that number is in the range 0-149, then the image is small, and the "tonnage" will be that number devided by 10, plus 1, which means it will be between 1-15.
:I'm afraid not. What I originally did was to replace the names of some form fields. I changed them again now. If that doesn't help, I'll have to figure out something else. — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] ([[User talk:Svdb|talk]]) 23:53, 8 October 2014 (CEST)
:If it is in the range 150-225, then the image is medium sized, and the tonnage will be between 15 and 23.
 
:If it is 226 or more, the image is large, and the tonnage will be 24 or more.
Looks like spambots are back again making a bunch of new user accounts. No spam pages yet. It seems to coincide with the upgrading of the MediaWiki software? --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] ([[User talk:Fyzixfighter|talk]]) 14:09, 24 February 2016 (CET)
:It may actually be the case that since the upgrade before this one, creating new accounts was broken completely.
:I'll see what I can do. — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] ([[User talk:Svdb|talk]]) 13:23, 27 February 2016 (CET)
 
== Spambots again ==
Hey Serge - I don't mind playing whack-a-spambot, but my real life commitments make it difficult to stay on top of the recent surge in spambots. I'm not sure if the CAPTCHA extensions need to be updated or if there's another extension that could be implemented. I'll keep looking through the MediaWiki help to see if there are any other possible things to try. --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] ([[User talk:Fyzixfighter|talk]]) 03:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
 
: Hi Fyzixfighter. Thanks for still whacking bots after all this time. If I can make this easier by installing some new extension, I'll be happy to do so. I'll look into options when I get the chance. — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] ([[User talk:Svdb|talk]]) 21:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
 
::It looks like QuestyCaptcha is the module in the ConfirmEdit extension that is currently being implemented here. Based on the table [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmEdit here], Questy is supposed to be highly effective until it is cracked - which is what likely has happened. A short-term solution (without any new extension) may be to change the questions and answers. Looking at the mediawiki page for ConfirmEdit, the Turnstile module is the only other one listed as being highly effective against spambots. That could be long-term possibility, but looks to be more involved to implement. I've seen another wiki also use [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AntiSpoof AntiSpoof], which might prevent some of the similar sounding usernames the bots have been using, and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:HoneyPot HoneyPot] for spam control. --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] ([[User talk:Fyzixfighter|talk]]) 00:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
 
::: Thanks for that research. I've slightly changed the QuestyCaptcha questions now (just asking for the digits in reverse). I hope to be able to look into your other suggestions this weekend. — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] ([[User talk:Svdb|talk]]) 21:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:20, 10 June 2025

Old stuff moved to User talk:Svdb/Old.

Spambots back

It looks like they started in earnest right after the massive creation of spam pages by a single user. Any chance that the small internal change to the ConfirmEdit extension that you did last year to thwart the automated spambot scripts somehow got undone when the "mass delete" option got added? --Fyzixfighter (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2014 (CEST)

I'm afraid not. What I originally did was to replace the names of some form fields. I changed them again now. If that doesn't help, I'll have to figure out something else. — SvdB (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2014 (CEST)

Looks like spambots are back again making a bunch of new user accounts. No spam pages yet. It seems to coincide with the upgrading of the MediaWiki software? --Fyzixfighter (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2016 (CET)

It may actually be the case that since the upgrade before this one, creating new accounts was broken completely.
I'll see what I can do. — SvdB (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2016 (CET)

Spambots again

Hey Serge - I don't mind playing whack-a-spambot, but my real life commitments make it difficult to stay on top of the recent surge in spambots. I'm not sure if the CAPTCHA extensions need to be updated or if there's another extension that could be implemented. I'll keep looking through the MediaWiki help to see if there are any other possible things to try. --Fyzixfighter (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fyzixfighter. Thanks for still whacking bots after all this time. If I can make this easier by installing some new extension, I'll be happy to do so. I'll look into options when I get the chance. — SvdB (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
It looks like QuestyCaptcha is the module in the ConfirmEdit extension that is currently being implemented here. Based on the table here, Questy is supposed to be highly effective until it is cracked - which is what likely has happened. A short-term solution (without any new extension) may be to change the questions and answers. Looking at the mediawiki page for ConfirmEdit, the Turnstile module is the only other one listed as being highly effective against spambots. That could be long-term possibility, but looks to be more involved to implement. I've seen another wiki also use AntiSpoof, which might prevent some of the similar sounding usernames the bots have been using, and HoneyPot for spam control. --Fyzixfighter (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for that research. I've slightly changed the QuestyCaptcha questions now (just asking for the digits in reverse). I hope to be able to look into your other suggestions this weekend. — SvdB (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?title=User_talk:Svdb&oldid=35360"