All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXXII

[Bob Schroeck]

An excess of caution, and memories of previous users who had tried to play css games. If it's safe I'll approve it.

[GethN7]

Bob, why did you reject the new page User:TentechBiolognostic/common.css in Moderation?

IIRC, user CCS pages only affect their own accounts (if I'm wrong here, please correct me), and for accessibility reasons we shouldn't be rejecting customization to a single user's display.

That's true. User CSS pages will only ever be visible to that user. Further, CSS merely affects the styling of the page while not affecting the code (JS pages do that, and even that is limited to the specific user only).

I looked over the proposed changes, and they seem pretty benign to me.

[robkelk]

I just hung a reminder on the wiki, in big bold letters with a yellow background, about tomorrow's planned outage. I even included a link to an online tool that converts UTC to local time (whatever the computer is set to use).

Let's see how many complaints we get about the wiki being down from people who don't read the notice.

[robkelk]

Ooooo-kayyyyy... I just marked "James zon" as a spammer because we don't have the ability to mark them as horridly-confused.

They made three posts - one perpetuating the "Krypto the runt" hoax, the other two refuting it, all three mentioning the same (permabanned from Miraheze) person as responsible for the work. Obviously these were not made by an individual person... unless that person simply wants attention. They could be made by multiple people sharing the same account, or an AI posting what it "thinks" we want to hear.


Regarding this particular issue that simply won't die: I propose that, at this point, we treat all posts about the hoax or the hoaxer as spam from ban-evaders, reject them without comment, and mark the posters as spammers unless they've previously posted something on-topic.

[Bob Schroeck]

Seconded.

[GethN7]

Seconded.

Thirded.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Fourth-ed

[Labster]

Fivthed ... fifthed? pthfiffled?

[GethN7]

It seems the crazed spammer we just discussed has been tormenting TV Tropes too:

https://archive.ph/A9ukS

[Bob Schroeck]

I'm not surprised. He's hit every other place he could over the past, what, eight months or so? IMDB, Fandom, god knows what else.

[Bob Schroeck]

Can someone else please take a look at the edits of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (novel)/Recap pages in the Mod Queue? I've been of two minds about them since they were submitted; the changes seem simply for the purpose of editorializing, and I can't decide whether to pass them or not. Can someone else please offer an opinion?

Thanks.

[GethN7]

Can someone else please take a look at the edits of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (novel)/Recap pages in the Mod Queue?  I've been of two minds about them since they were submitted; the changes seem simply for the purpose of editorializing, and I can't decide whether to pass them or not.  Can someone else please offer an opinion?

Thanks.

I approved them. As someone who has read all the books, the commentary in question is accurate, and it fits the characters mentioned like a glove. The worst "editorial" comments about Snape having a huge chip on his shoulder concerning Harry are not only accurate, but it's also a massive understatement if anything. Honestly, that's putting Snape's issues quite politely.


On a different note, since Moderation is needed to approve basically ANY edit now, that means the deranged spammer who was annoying us will never get a chance to make any of their drivel public.

[Bob Schroeck]

Thank you.

And yes, I'd realized almost as soon as Flow went away that talk pages were now protected by Moderation, and I am just as glad of it as you are.

[robkelk]

Folks, I'm a bit busy at the moment. Could somebody else update the Academy Award navboxes that we have, please?

(And if you're really ambitions, maybe build more of them? (Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress don't have navboxes yet, to name two.) But that isn't as important as keeping the existing boxes up-to-date is.

[Bob Schroeck]

I've updated the five existing navboxes.

[robkelk]

Thanks, Bob.

[Bob Schroeck]

One question about them, though... the years on the winners seem to be behind the "official" year by 1 -- for instance, last year's winners are dated 2024. Which pretty much is in conflict with every official list out there. What was the reason behind that?

[robkelk]

I copied from Wikipedia, who used that format.

I think it's because the awards for year N are given out in March of year N+1, and everybody else uses the N+1 date.