User talk:Bcent1234

From ErfWiki

Revision as of 20:46, 3 April 2012 by Muzzafar (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Spammers

What we've been doing in the past instead of redirecting the page is to replace the contents with the category:spammer tag. For that matter, we tag the spammer on their Talk page with it as well. That way, the admins don't have to wade through the recent changes page and can just check the one directory.

Also, just for giggles, check out The Spamming of Erfwiki. -- No one in particular 17:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I should ask you to be a little careful with the templates you use and where you drop them. Only deploy the spammer tags on User pages. That way the admins, when they finally get off their cloud, can sweep the category tag it drops and quickly deploy bans to them, or just delete the accounts. Adding it to pages the bots name after themselves outside the User namespace just clutters that category up. Adding the delete template to the User pages is also superfluous, since the spammer template implies the deletion anyway. Plus, less means less data being hosted. I know it isn't much, but adding both templates doubles the average amount of crap stored which does build up across multiple spambots, especially when we have thousands of the little fuckers. --Pickled Tink 20:48, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

[edit] IPTSF_Text_29

Hi! First of all, allow me to apologize for offending you with an edit that you saw as disrespectful to you and what you do for the ErfWiki. That was not my intent. I am sure we both want to make information on the wiki more useful.
My logic in taking out the link to Luckamancy was that we do not have good reasons to believe that Jillian's 'blind luck' in not encountering enemy units was (or could be at all) influenced by Luckamancy. I felt it was speculative to link 'luck' to 'Luckamancy' in this context.
I realize that removing the link was as subjective and arbitrary (or almost as subjective and arbitrary) as adding the link, and it would have been much more appropriate to discuss it with you first. Haste is probably good only when killing spam. Again, please accept my apologies.
I would love to know more about your thinking in this case. Meanwhile, I put the link back.
Looking forward to hearing from you. (Please reply on my talk page - I do not check RecentChanges because of all the recent spam.) -- Muzzafar 16:46, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

Go To:
Personal tools