MediaWiki talk:Spamprotectiontext

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Meta admin link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Done by Lupin and Xaosflux - Ozalid (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of local/non-URL spam protection

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image replacement request 

message: 
Enclose this message in a  with an  attribute, thus:
 ... [message content] ... 
so that it may be referred to using CSS. Thanks – Gurch 00:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - Nihiltres(t.l) 14:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  id attribute 

message: 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)
replies: text: yes, it is. this sentence should be deleted. -- Lustiger seth (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  . — Rjd0060 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Should be all better now. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages with bad links are now editable 

message: 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  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:
# WP:BEANS is an essay, not a policy or a guideline.
# Users sometimes have to mention certain blacklisted links, such as discussing whether a link should be whitelisted for a certain article.
# Spambots will not "learn" to add  tags if a link they are trying to add is blocked.
# 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)
thread_title:  adding information on bypassing the spam filter 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove red box wrapper (fmbox) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks User:Billinghurst! DMacks (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add mention of MW-wide blacklist 

message: 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:
— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: DatGuyTalkContribs 15:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 10 September 2022