MediaWiki talk:Spamprotectiontext

Meta admin link

Would anyone object to changing "If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please contact an m:Administrator." to " If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please contact a meta administrator."? --Phroziac ^(talk) 15:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually changing it to point to the "requests for removal" section of the blacklist talk page. silsor 00:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No mention of local/non-URL spam protection

When editing Talk:HD DVD I ran into a block that had been set on the decryption key, a string which had been added by a previous editor. The text told me that I had added a part of a URL that was blocked and directed me to address removal requests to m:Talk:Spam blacklist. I posted there, on the grounds that it was not a URL.

I was later informed by Splarka that this block had been made through the addition of the key to $wgSpamRegex in globalsettings.php, due to the large number of people that had or were expected to add the key to articles.

Conspicuously lacking in this message is:

• The possibility that the blocked text might not be part of a URL
• Any suggestion that Wikipedia may be blocking URLs locally in addition to Wikimedia global settings

The result is that people will be directed to meta when the people there know nothing about a block, for blocks which are not on URLs and which arguably should not be blocked in the first place (unless blocking policy has been expanded). GreenReaper 07:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A link to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (local spam-blacklist for the english wikipedia) would be useful in this message. Ozalid (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done by Lupin and Xaosflux - Ozalid (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image replacement request

{{editprotected}} Please change Image:Symbol comment vote 2.svg to Image:Symbol comment vote.svg. Also change the image size +1 or -1 as it currently does not display. Siebrand 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

id attribute

{{sudo}}

Enclose this message in a <div> with an id attribute, thus:

<div id="mw-spamprotectiontext"> ... [message content] ... </div>

so that it may be referred to using CSS. Thanks – Gurch 00:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres^(t.l) 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pages with bad links are now editable

{{editprotected}} Looks like the part "If you did not add the link yourself..." is obsolete since rev:34769. This change is also mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-19/Technology report. —AlexSm 04:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, it is. this sentence should be deleted. -- Lustiger seth (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I already forgot about this message... adding {editprotected}. As far as I understand, everything after "If you did not add the link yourself ..." should be removed inside the table. —AlexSm 18:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done [1]. — Rjd0060 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not done yet. Please note that the part about section edit became obsolete as well, and probably two other sentences as well. —AlexSm 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be all better now. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

adding information on bypassing the spam filter

I'm thinking of adding something along the following line:

"You can still add the URL as regular text instead of a hyperlink by placing it between nowiki tags."

I know this move will probably be controversial, so I'm asking here first. I'm also aware that some users will oppose this due to WP:BEANS, but I have four justifications for making this change:

1. WP:BEANS is an essay, not a policy or a guideline.
2. Users sometimes have to mention certain blacklisted links, such as discussing whether a link should be whitelisted for a certain article.
3. Spambots will not "learn" to add nowiki tags if a link they are trying to add is blocked.
4. The abuse filter can still be used to prevent users from adding blacklisted links to articles this way.

Any thoughts? --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:WHITELIST is where they should go instead of sneaking around the filter and adding links that where blocked for a reason. β^_command 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• If someone needs to mention a blacklisted link in a discussion, they should already know how to bypass the filter, and it's not that hard to figure out anyways (<nowiki /> tags aren't necessary, it's as easy as mentioning e.g. blogspot.com). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dear me, no. We already leave the key under the mat, let's not tell all and sundry it's there. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

user-friendlier message

{{sudo}} I believe this message is not formatted in a way that makes its point go through. Please consider my proposal below to make it clearer to editors what they did wrong and how to fix it. Here's the current version:

And here's my proposal:

I'd like to hear your thoughts. --Waldir ^talk 13:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. But there is no point making text small and then giving a new line because it doesn't save any space! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol :) but the idea was to help people focus on the main info (it's still quite a bit of text), instead of saving space. Other layout/wording suggestions are welcome, though. --Waldir ^talk 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I don't like you proposal is that it makes it sound like there are 3 things you can do to get the edit saved. That is incorrect, because if you have added useful information you want to save now the only thing you can do is to remove the offending links before saving. The other two options, are what you can do if you still want to add that link in after redacting and saving or not saving your edit. For that reason I prefer the original. I'm removing the editprotecvted tag for now, if consensus for a change is met please feel free to readd it. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposal was going in the right direction, so taking Rambo's Revenge's good point on board, how about this:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rd232 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's excellent! :) --Waldir ^talk 12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this version looks good to me. It tells the editor who is having a link problem exactly what they need to do. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When you trigger spamlist, the editbox is not present on the page, so maybe we should mention clicking the "back" button. Also, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist imho is poorly organized, so maybe a direct link to removals section would be better. — AlexSm 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This new box is definitely clearer than the old. As AlexSm says, the edit box is not present on the page, so the wording should reflect this. The wording could be made a little simpler too (as I'm almost always in favor of changes that make our instructions and procedure pages shorter). E.g.,

"Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a forbidden site." ("a external" fixed also)

"To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save again." (just the verb "save" should be sufficient; some verbiage pruned)

"To add the link at a later time, you can:" (shorter, added colon for punctuation)

"Request that the site be allowed, [...]" ("in question" not necessary for understanding)

Just some thoughts. • Anakin ^(talk) 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, another thought, which is the better of the two bottom instructions to list first? Which is preferable or happens more often -- whitelisting or un-blacklisting? • Anakin ^(talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, taking those good comments on board and some additional tweaks. I think the order of the bottom instructions is fine, it's a logical order to me, and easier to understand that way round.

Good to go? Rd232 ^talk 08:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason you didn't include AlexSm's suggestion to link directly to the removal section of the local spam blacklist? I think that was a good one. --Waldir ^talk 12:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the reason is I read those comments, and then came back the next day to the draft, and missed it second time round. Updated - it's a good idea. Rd232 ^talk 12:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Then, I took the liberty to also link to the relevant section on the global spam blacklist link. I think this is ready to go :) --Waldir ^talk 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done - updated. Rd232 ^talk 19:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to revise this a bit, in the following manner:

• "site registered on the spam blacklist" instead of "forbidden", partly to better explain why it is blocked, and partly because "forbidden" sounds odd;
• "If you feel the link is warranted, you can submit a proposal in one of two ways" instead of "To add the link at a later time, you can" because the latter makes it sound as if it is simply a case of saying "please". That's also why I've proposed the text at the bottom of the box, so that editors clearly understand that blacklisting is not a minor matter, and that they'll have to make a case for inclusion. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, though I'd have "is needed" or "is helpful" for "is warranted", as slightly clearer. Rd232 ^talk 09:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, maybe helpful/useful/needed would make the language clearer. I also agree with the general spirit of the revision, but I'd prefer to avoid making this text big again. For once, the "submit a proposal in one of two ways" could be removed as its meaning is implicit; and the bottom warning is too long, IMO. Maybe I'd keep only the second sentence of it. --Waldir ^talk 09:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So, incorporating the above comments, something like:

I've changed "warranted" to "needed", dropped the submit" text, and trimmed the last line. How is it now? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Rd232 ^talk 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed :) --Waldir ^talk 21:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll post that version now. (By the way, good job on revising this message. I'd seen it many times when testing links I've had to add to the blacklist, but I've never thought about reworking it.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove red box wrapper (fmbox)

The red wrapper around this message is unnecessary, as both major editing interfaces already include their own wrappers with very similar styling. Note the screenshots:

• Wikitext editor: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/F29342732
• Visual editor: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/F29342747 (slightly doctored screenshot to show the entire message, which requires scrolling to view)

I suggest that we remove the wrapper, that is, removing the beginning up to and including |text = , and remove the ending }}. Matma Rex talk 17:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Make the blacklisted domain bold and highlighted so it is easy to see

How do we make the blacklisted domain bigger, bold and red so it is easier to find? Currently it is buried in the text and I'm often interested in finding them quickly so that I can scrub them off of talk pages so they will archive.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay it is MediaWiki:Spamprotectionmatch (argument $1) that I'm referring to and I've added highlighting with bold and h4 tags to make it bigger. That should do the trick.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: this isn't actually a "section header" so h4 isn't really semantically correct, it is already in 3 div blocks and directly under an h1 entry. Instead of using h4 you could just use "big" tags like:

<big><b><mark> $1 </mark></b></big>

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Yes! Thank you, Xaosflux. That is much better.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Add mention of MW-wide blacklist

Based on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Britannica_blacklisted?, could the message mention that it could be either our (WP's) site-local blacklist or MW's all-sites blacklist? DMacks (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

[2] Thanks User:Billinghurst! DMacks (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request 10 September 2022

Description of suggested change: space after the asterisks. API delivers this message without newlines (god knows why) and this makes it easier to reconstruct at least some of those newlines.

Diff:

−

**Note that

+

** Note that

— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)