This talk page is automatically archived by SassoBot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
  • Archive #1 - Entries archived from May 2008 through March 2009.
  • Archive #2 - Entries archived from April 2009 through March 2010.
  • Archive #3 - Entries archived from April 2010 through August 2011.
  • Archive #4 - Entries archived from September 2011 through April 2012.
  • Archive #5 - Entries archived from May 2012 through September 2013.
  • Archive #6 - Entries archived from October 2013 through November 2016.
  • Archive #7 - Entries archived from December 2016 through November 2018.
  • Archive #8 - Entries archived from December 2018 through September 2019.
  • Archive #9 - Entries archived from November 2019 through Current.


Abuse FilterEdit

Wanted to ask why you disabled/deleted Abuse Filter #80? As soon as it was removed, the vandalism is was preventing reoccurred. It had few, if any, false positives. Can it be reinstated? Operator873talkconnect 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Because abuse filters for a single issue on a single page likely by a single user is an overreach for the same reason we don't protect pages that are getting hit by only one user. The reason I remove it is that it was FPing my own edits. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Can we not fix it so that it ignores autoconfirmed users effectively? It's an extremely useful filter, regardless of whether it only prevents one person or many. Vermont (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to eagle eye Chenzw we have it fixed and enabled. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Amazing, thanks Chenzw! Vermont (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Range BlockEdit

I noticed you had made this block which affects 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 unique IP addresses to block the edits of one IP address. Should we dial that in a bit tighter? Operator873talkconnect 16:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That is an IPv6 address so it blocks exactly 1 user. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I beg your pardon sir... but ‎2409:4064:985:4509:c112:b4d8:cd:b874 is a single address. 2409:4064:985:4509:0:0:0:0/64 is a range. Note the /64 which indicates a cidr range. You don't have to take my word for it even though this is what I do for a living... Operator873talkconnect 16:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
It is what I do for a living as well, ISPs hand out the /64 CIDR block to single users, its standard on en as well as here to block the /64 of IPv6 editors when they are seen to be switching between IPs in the /64 range. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  (talk page stalker) RFC 6177 recommends assigning a subnet of at least /64 (up to /48) size to each end user/site, and that is being practiced by several ISPs (including mine, which issues a /48). This would be consistent with an IPv4 block of one IP address (one household). The idea here is that multiple devices at the same site/household will all get different IPv6 addresses in the subnet, unlike current IPv4 practice where network address translation takes place instead. Chenzw  Talk  17:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I just don't see the wisdom in nuking an entire range when we could have blocked the specific IP address. For all we know, we just took out an entire business or private school or etc instead of using the precise block with all 128 bits. Operator873talkconnect 17:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
That is sort of the point, to take out the entire site, just like an IPv4 block would. Especially when its an LTA using it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Since IPv6 affords the opportunity to block a specific machine, I would have thought blocking it first, then the range if necessary and only if necessary would have been more prudent. Operator873talkconnect 17:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
In this specific case it was just replicating the en.wiki block. But generally I do just try the single IP, and then go up to the range. But being how this user has hit us with many many IPs over the last couple weeks I decided to follow en.wikis lead. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
FYI, this guy is actually active on /32. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I know but that has more chance of collateral damage. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The archiving botEdit

Can you tell me why the bot hasn't archived my talk page in almost a month? I haven't changed the config parameters. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Logs say its cause you don't have enough sections to archive. But that doesn't seem right. I have to run out but when I have a chance I will look closer. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I guess that's it. There are six sections (including the one that you added a datestamped comment to). The default for minthreadstoarchive is 2. But if the bot archived 2 threads, that would leave four, which is under the default of 5 for minthreadsleft. I may or may not tweak the parameters later. Thanks for checking, and sorry for bothering you with something I could have figured out myself. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The articleEdit

Hello, yes, I agree. My oversight, Til had also did POV pushing in major sense per the Global ban discussion, so I mistaken it. Apologies. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah just reading over that discussion now. No worries, your edit was definitely in good faith. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, will be more circumspect next round still. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

+could you help to RD these content+edit summary and same. Personal Information. Thanks much. The page QD deletion log had already been RD.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I will take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for handling. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

article has major problemsEdit

Hello, The entry "Bilal Orfali" has major problems, It was updated several times, but one administrator "Praxidicae" has reverted to the older version and is blocking any change. This person is mean and deleted any requests related to this page for no reason no matter how nicely one asks. His comments on all inquiries on his talk page are impolite. Can you please help me retrieve the older page and block this use "Praxidicae" from interfering with it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditarab (talkcontribs)

This comment has been added to a number of user talk pages. It refers to a non-existent page. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Categorization questionEdit

I saw you follow up on my edits earlier, and in the edit history of some of the pages in question, so you're probably a good one to ask:

I was going to go around and clean up the categorization of the redirect templates (all of the Template:R from [whatever]) but ran into a few different cases and wasn't sure which was right:

I'm leaning towards the tao sort since they're templates relating to the category topic, but I wasn't sure if that would apply the same way (since they're more of maintenance templates/categories than content ones). Would I be right to assume that? Brantmeierz (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally tend to sort templates to the top of a category. More often than not I just choose a space. Technically templates are supposed to be under τ. But I don't think you will find many people bother with that. However, since you are trying to actually do clean up of categorization that is probably the way you should go. -DJSasso (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I'll go with that - thanks for the second opinion. Brantmeierz (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)