User talk:Drubanov

Welcome!
Something odd happened after my account was banned.

First of all, I can't see any of my edits on the user page. They didn't all relate to the article which caused a ban. I made a number of edits to the "weak reference" page and I was able to see them before on my history page. I would like to be able to link to them from my page again.

Second of all, I have found something which I am sure must be a bug. After doing a search for myself on wikipedia as shown below:



I get the spewing bug page shown below:



Drubanov (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What page is that search you're trying? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't seem to be able to find it anymore. I do believe it was a user search page because I was trying to find a history of my own edits.  One of two things has happened (or both of them):


 * I am taken to a different user search page now that the block has expired for X number of hours (for some unknown-to-me value of X).
 * The page was rolled back. The user search page shows up as a '.php' CGI search.  As you can see from the spew, it used to go through some Python page (and from the names of the directories it looks experimental).  While I do understand that the Python invocation could have been some mid-tier, that doesn't square too well with the Python exception showing up on the page itself.  Also the fact the color scheme of the search page is different now (a white form vs a gray form during the spew-inducing period) is another indication that something was rolled back to make it work again.  Oh, and I looked through all my browser history for the past 3 days filtered by "wikipedia" and found no pages which would result in the grey search form.


 * I don't really need to know if it's the 2nd one -- as long as you rolled it back and it works now, that's your business. But if it's the 1st one and it may happen again, or if there are still some lingering effects, maybe you should alert developers.  You can probably find out who was doing the experimenting from the spew.  I can't even find the entry form anymore.  But you should have no problems finding it by looking through your commit history for snippets of the text on that form.

Drubanov (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually think that you may be using the tool incorrectly, as opposed to there being a bug. If you want to see a list of the edits you've made with this account, you can find that pretty easily at Special:Contributions/Drubanov (see Special:Contributions for a general search box). Your screenshot is probably this tool, which is intended to search for contributions to a specific page, not provide a list of all your edits. I was able to reproduce that kind of "spew" for any Wikipedia account by leaving the "Page" field blank and using an asterisk in the "database" field instead of  . Please try using Special:Contributions/Drubanov for what you want to do, and if you want to find edits to a specific page, fill in the "Page" field with the page title and the "Database" field with  . Mz7 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, thank you Mz7 for finding out the page which produced the Python spew. But, to the point, whenever a form on a site results in an exception in the script which handles submission of the form, and the details of that exception are presented to the end user, that's a bug. The filling out of the form on the page https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py in the way which I showed in my 1st capture above resulted in the spew which I demonstrated in the 2nd capture. So that is a bug. And developers should know about it. As of this writing, in response to the same inputs, this spew still happens. I just checked. Drubanov (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This error is not an administrator matter. You can report it to the developer of the script, User:Σ. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Holding Head of the President of the United
http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-879.html

Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon-- a former President or a member of the immediate family of a former President; a member of the immediate family of the President, the President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect; a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate;  or a person protected by the Secret Service under section 3056(a)(6); shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. As used in this section-- the term “immediate family” means-- with respect to subsection (a) (1) of this section, the wife of a former President during his lifetime, the widow of a former President until her death or remarriage, and minor children of a former President until they reach sixteen years of age;  and with respect to subsection (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, a person to whom the President, President-elect, Vice President, Vice President-elect, or major candidate for the office of President or Vice President-- is related by blood, marriage, or adoption;  or stands in loco parentis; the term “major candidate for the office of President or Vice President” means a candidate referred to in subsection (a)(7) of section 3056 of this title;  and the terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” have the meanings given those terms in section 871(b) of this title Easeltine (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why the previous comment (the one quoting the law relevant to Kathy Griffin's actions) was put on my talk page. There was no stated purpose to it, was there? I am earnestly trying to understand the reason for it. Was it to provoke a response? If it was to make public the context of her actions, wouldn't Kathy Griffin's Wikipedia page itself be more appropriate for it? I honestly don't see how to discern comments from posts here. Drubanov (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting question, but it's one only Easeltine can answer. That law quote certainly does not belong into the article on Griffin, though - that would be original synthesis. Huon (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Warning
Your latest edits on Kathy Griffin is vandalism. If you do it again you could be blocked.BabbaQ (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)