User talk:Suffusion of Yellow/Archive 3

User:Suffusion of Yellow/HotCat.js
Hey, Are you still using the copy of HotCat in your userspace? If not, can you please delete it? It contains old code, so won't actually work (correctly) anyway. If you haven't already, you can enable the extension in your preferences :) Reedy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added a long time ago
 * Done. Better late then never, I suppose. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Newbie20180709
Hi there. Just wanted to let you know I tagged the talk page of this account as an alternate account of yours to avoid confusion. Clearly it's not a newbie! Home Lander (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just wanted to see if we tell new users that userpages are noindexed. It seems we do not. Perhaps I will suggest a change. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back!
It's been a while but welcome back! I missed seeing this particular DNA reference in my watchlist Regards SoWhy 18:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Glad you're still around too. Has NPP tagging improved now that the patrol button is a special "right" and not given out to everyone? A few quick visits to Category:CSD have shown that it has not. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not really. NPP invariably attracts a number of editors who believe in WP:MMORPG. special user groups or stuff like WP:ACREQ be damned. Which means it's even more important for levelheaded editors such as yourself to return Regards SoWhy 19:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked
Hi, Suffusion of Yellow. I've blocked the harassing IP for a week. If you should see more of the same from IPs with the first four digit groups the same, I recommend you to ask for a rangeblock on WP:ANI. (Or ask me, if it happens within the next couple of hours; after that, I'm going on vacation.) Bishonen &#124; talk 19:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I'd keep a close eye on the whole /60 range, if I were you. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The /64 range? I would if I could, but as I said, I'm going on vacation in a couple of hours. No computer access. That's why I'm suggesting ANI. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC).
 * I did mean the /60 range, not the /64. But I'd rather be vague, and the problem seems to have passed. Never mind. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Any idea what to do about the level 4im warnings he left? I'm leaving them up for now since they contain a link his talk page, so hopefully the bitten users can see what's up. But probably some kind of note could be added to each talk page as well. I just don't want it to scream OMG LOOK AT WHAT THE TROLL DID to later users of the same address. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And speaking of WP:DENY, I hope you don't mind the slight change I made to the copy I put on my userpage. Don't want that link there. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled comment
Please am sorry for the inappropraite link in the article but please i really need your help. Am a blogger and i have lost all traffics in my site please can i get a little backlinks from wikipedia i will be so grateful if my request is looked upon and granted THANKS AND GOD BLESS YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedeh costly (talk • contribs) 17:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, ! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Shellwood doesn't want to talk
Hi Suffusion of Yellow,

I received a message to my talk page from Shellwood accusing me of vandalism, without any explanation or further comment. I went to Shellwood's user page to see what might be going on, and noticed that he/she invites responses from those whose edits he/she has reverted. I offered such a comment, including an 'assume good faith' template. This was reverted with a comment to 'kindly stay off this page,' which seemed to be in stark contrast to his/her affirmation on their user page that they oppose censorship on Wikipedia. With the rapidity of reversion issued by Shellwood, I can only wonder if the account may in fact be operated by a bot, but I have no way of knowing either way. In any case, I am rather uncertain of how to respond, having already been threatened with blocking by Shellwood, who I can only assume has the privileges to do so. Your advice would be gratefully received.

80.192.245.98 (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * is not a admin and cannot block you. The only thing you've done that's blockable is edit-war on his talk page, so I'd suggest not doing that anymore, to start. Moving on, if you think the template message you received was unjust, remove it and go back to editing. If you really think this Augustus Porter guy is notable, try writing Draft:Augustus Porter and getting it accepted before adding his name to any more articles. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, this is very helpful. In the first instance, I'm not sure he warrants his own page. Perhaps this means he isn't sufficiently notable to be listed in my original edit. Either way, my concern was in the implication of malice through vandalism to the page, which I had hoped to have justified. Thanks again for your comments. 80.192.245.98 (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic (from the Bitser-Afd): The breakfast liquid consumption list.
Well, first read the lead of the article as it was at time of AfD'ing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_breakfast_drinks&oldid=849507279 Next, read the Afd. - and you'll know why olive oil is on the list ;-) Anyway, I've given up on trying to understand that muppet show: Apparently it's a very notable list, which can be fixed, and nobody is therefore spending any time fixing it. If that doesn't make sense to you either, then you too may be suffering from what I like to call "common sense". -- DexterPointy (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Relevant essay: WP:Somebody else's problem. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though the "somebody else's problem" is far from limited to AfDs. But if speaking of AfDs, then it's not "especially the nominator" who should lead the way: An article is often nominated due to lack of encyclopedic value, and anyone who (after an AfD closes) realise that to be true, can't reasonably write the article. E.g. It's impossible to write an article on e.g. "Flying pigs in Uganda", simply based on "keep"-voters desire and junk sources thrown around in an AfD. -- DexterPointy (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/test
If you want to see what this looks like I gave you a week of access over at testwiki:Special:AbuseFilter/test. Don't break the testwiki please. — xaosflux  Talk 18:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I see the "Load" button now. You realize you gave me full admin access, not just abusefilter, yes? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding: And before I try anything there, I cannot overload the servers by accidentally putting something that matches every single edit in the test interface, can I? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, go ahead and try something like . —  xaosflux  Talk 18:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my misclick on Carnival
One of my revert edit on Carnival was a misopreation. Thank you for reverting this, I'll be more careful in the future. — Phenolla  ⚫️  🔵  04:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's more important to apologize to the person you reverted, but I see you have already done that. Happy editing! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The username caesar20142018
Hi, Suffusion of Yellow. I am connected with the CAESAR committee. The username caesar20142018 was created to edit the wikipedia webpage(s) related to the CAESAR competition. Thanks!

"Hi. Are you connected with the CAESAR committee somehow? I saw Draft:CAESAR (Competition for Authenticated Encryption: Security, Applicability, and Robustness) and want to help bring it to mainspace, but am concerned you may get mistaken for a spammer. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar20142018 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there more than one person behind this account? I'm still worried you might get blocked for having a username that implies shared use. If there is more than one person here, then you should pick one person who will edit from this account. Regardless, it's probably best if you request a new username here. Also see the template left on your talk page - if you want to copy djb's post without rewriting it, he can put it up on cr.yp.to under a Wikipedia-compatible license (or a public domain statement as I gather he prefers). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I changed the username, and rewrote part of the page. User:cryptography39421367

Thank you
...very much for this edit. I figured someone would come along sooner or later and make that link. Didn't expect it to be that quick! Sincerely appreciated. 68.187.249.27 (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Actually, I just wrote a script to make these sorts of edits semi-automatically and, with WP:EF/FP/R oddly quiet, have been hunting through Special:AbuseLog for opportunities to test it. So thank you for the chance. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of any help. BTW, I took a look at my filter log and was a little shocked at how many times I'm tripping some of those filters. Since it appears you are at least somewhat involved in edit filters, I thought I would share some of the particularly concerning ones:
 * Here where I mentioned unlinking something that had the word "Id† ot" († just in case it trips now) contained in it. Apparently the edit is disallowed if that word appears in the edit summary, regardless of context?
 * Edits such as this which was tagged "wikilinks removed by a new user or IP", from a DAB page, when the most common problem on DAB pages is having more than one link per entry, which I clearly state and link the MOS guideline in the edit summary.
 * Three consecutive trips on identical edits that were tagged as "image vandalism". Image vandalism because I linked a band named Kent??
 * Here's good one. An edit consisting solely of punctuation fixes gets tagged as "LTA Username / LTA IP hopping disruption (Oshwah)".
 * This edit removed a citation to a Wikipedia article used as a ref and was tagged "references removed".
 * And this, which was tagged Newer user possibly adding unreferenced or improperly referenced material. I didn't add any material. The edit solely consisted of modifying incorrect wikilinks to their correct targets.


 * Just wondering, do you want your edit filters behaving this way? Are there sensitivity adjustments that are cranked up higher at times? What are the false positive rates on some of these filters? Is that even accurately known? I doubt no more than a tiny fraction are ever reported. 68.187.249.27 (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And the above post just triggered the "LTA Username / LTA IP hopping disruption (Oshwah)" description again. I think this is the second, and only the second time, it has done that. What's going on here? 68.187.249.27 (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Filters can be set to "log-only", "tag", "warn" or "disallow". Log-only filters, such as the "LTA Username / LTA IP hopping disruption (Oshwah)" one (which actually has lots of hits), are mostly experimental or still in development and a huge number of false positives are expected; if more of the hits were unconstructive it would have been set to actually do something by now. That said, I don't have the permission to see private filters either, so I don't really know what that filter is supposed to be flagging. Perhaps if  wants to add anything he will reply to this ping, but filters are typically private for a reason, so don't expect much of an answer.
 * Tag-only filters also typically flag a high number of constructive edits, though sometimes newbies don't realize this. All they mean is "extra human review requested" and if 50% or even 90% of flagged edits are constructive that's not really a problem if it helps people find the other 10%.
 * That leaves us with only one problematic false positive in your list,, and yes, any use of the word "idiot" in the summary will trip this filter regardless of context, and no, I'm not sure that's a good idea, but I'm not sure what the fix would be. If you just want to avoid the hassle of filters yourself, you can create an account, and once you become autoconfirmed most of the filters will skip your edits. If you are more concerned about the general problem (WP:BITEing new users, etc.), then your input at WP:EF/FP/R (there is no official "clerk" position; anyone can respond), and WP:EF/N is always welcome, but at least a minimal knowledge of the filter syntax and regular expressions would be advised. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And no, I don't know of any attempt to measure unreported false positives, but I suspect many good users are scared off by the "Disruptive editing may result in a block from editing" line from MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed and don't report anything. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Very informative reply. At first I didn't quite understand the 'newbie' link you provided and then I got a chuckle when I explored it further and realized you were telling me everyone was new here once. I feel better about it all and do not plan letting that filter log bother me too much now. I also do not plan on creating an account as of right now.
 * Although in a way your polite and thorough explanations raise as many general concerns and questions as they answer, I've already bothered you enough and I don't see myself chiming in on those forums. All the best. 68.187.249.27 (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

System testing
Your help is needed. Will you help steer the direction of this article that you have contributed to? See discussion at Talk:System_testing Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, this is my only contribution to the article. I doubt I'll be weighing in at that discussion. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Daily Emerald third sources
I appreciate you taking the time to look at my case. Unfortunately, I don't really have any other sources for the incident. I went back to the page and added another source that mentions the article, but as far as I can tell, I'm the only one who's ever written about the paper being censored.

I would appreciate it if you left the section as it is, but understand you've gotta do what you gotta do and I will support whatever decision you make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Schucht (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the words "Student Blog" at the end of your story. Is there any kind of editorial oversight at the blog, and if so, is this stated somewhere? If not, it's essentially the same as if you had just written about the incident directly at Wikipedia in the first place. Which is of course covered under WP:OR. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I wrote that blog as a paid student employee of the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon. It was edited and approved by both SOJC Event Manger Emma Oravecz and SOJC Managing Editor of Digital and Editorial Content Andra Brichacek. I interviewed two people who worked for the Daily Emerald at the time of the event in question for the article and made sure to back everything up by looking over the Daily Emerald's archive. So it's not just something I put up online myself without any fact checking or oversight. It had to be approved by several other people before hand, especially since it was published on the Journalism school's website. Eric Schucht (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Long-term abuse/Cruizir
FYI. ― Abelmoschus  Esculentus  23:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Heard of him, but didn't make the connection with "Crusher". Still, without any edits from the user, it could be a coincidence. Remember, when a good faith editor comes to WP:EF/FP/R they've typically just seen this WP:BITEy message:
 * So they've been given what almost amounts to a level 3 vandalism warning for no good reason, and we should generally try to give them some sort of explanation of what happened. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So they've been given what almost amounts to a level 3 vandalism warning for no good reason, and we should generally try to give them some sort of explanation of what happened. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! If I may make a suggestion, try archiving (or, if you think any are inappropriate, removing) the warning messages currently littering your talk page. When people see lots of template warnings on your user talk page, they tend to assume you are a "problem user" and add even more warnings when they see you making what they think are "questionable" edits. And if you don't understand why you've been warned for something, it's okay to (politely) ask the warning user for clarification. But be sure to ping them if you are replying from your own talk page, or they may not notice your question. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

RE: YEH AI v3516-2019
I can't believe you stole my AIV report for this guy. I mean come on, he's vandalising MY talk page, and I don't even get the satisfaction of being the one to report him? 😉

Seriously though, thank you for reporting him, and for reverting some of the vandalism. I owe you one. Thegreatluigi (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. FYI, that kind of user can be reported to AIV with zero warnings. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, as the saying goes. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do know that, but I always like to give them one warning, just to make sure. Admittedly, I should probably have made an exception in this case. Thegreatluigi (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, ! Speaking of making edits, do you need any, um, documentation for User:Suffusion of Yellow/effp-helper.js? Or have you figured it out from the code comments? I've been meaning to write something... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that script. I installed it a while back and completely forgot I had it, figures. I haven't looked at the code comments in detail but I do think documentation would definitely be helpful if you have the time to create it, for people like me who suck at JavaScript. :-)-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know I'm very likely to be missing something obvious, but I'm not sure where the link as in First see if we are on a details/examine page, and add a handy link if so is supposed to show up. I tested it on Special:AbuseLog/22835581 and I'm not able to find a link there.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What skin are you using? In Monobook, there should be be a "make edit" link just to the left of the "special page" tab at the top. In Vector, it should be under the "More" menu just to the right of the search box. Follow that, and wait a few seconds for some notifications to come up. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't think to look under the "More" menu. It works now; thanks! Nice script. If you don't end up creating documentation for this, I wonder if it would be worth adding where the link actually shows up to the invisible comment?-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added the comment that is. The reason I dread writing the documentation is that it's really hard to explain what happens when someone edits the page before you get to it. To start, if you get an edit conflict, that's not a bug, that's a feature intended to prevent you from stomping on other people's edits. But even if you don't get a conflict, "Show Preview" and "Show changes" will show you undoing the subsequent edits, even if "Publish" does no such thing. AFAICT that's a MediaWiki bug (you can also see it when editing busy pages manually), not a bug in my script, but it's still annoying. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the comment. I've actually encountered the bug you mentioned a few times before, though usually on other wikis as on WP I don't usually edit pages while they're quickly being edited by many different people. I understand what you're saying and of course, there's really no pressure to create a documentation for the script, especially because of all the information you have in the invisible comments.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

James Picard advice
Thank you for your advice about updated the James Picard wiki - and to slow down. We are journalists who have been inundated with messages from buyers who fell for a scam based on lies, many of which are contained in the wiki page. We felt an urgency to neutralize the wiki, hoping to prevent others from losing money. We will work on the entire piece off wiki and then ask for advice when it's ready to be changed. Thank you. Unnamedsources8 (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)unnamedsources8 Jan 12 2019

effp-helper.js error
I just tried to use this for Special:AbuseLog/22975304 and I got the following error:

Just wanted to let you know. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I noticed that your edit here was tagged with 2017 wikitext editor. I tried switching to that editor, and I got a similar error at the same line, so I'm guessing that's the problem. Does the script work for you with the plain-vanilla wikitext editor (the one you get when you disable "New wikitext mode" under "Beta features" in your preferences)? I'll look into making it work with new editor, but I want to make sure that's the problem. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't tried it, but I will next time --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't figure out a way for the script to work with the 2017 editor, at least not without doing things in fundamentally different way. But now, when you click on the "make edit" link, the old editor should come up instead. This may stop working again next WP:THURSDAY for all I know. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try it next time I see a false positive report --DannyS712 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Doc page
Hey any interest in a documentation page for User:Suffusion of Yellow/effp-helper.js? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It'll need to a bit more work, to explain the forced merge-or-edit-conflict hackery that happens when someone else edits the page first, but I'll try to add that in the next day or two. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I made it because I saw that User:Suffusion of Yellow/effp-helper was a red link - feel free to move this page there, and edit it as you see fit. Sorry if I overstepped it making this doc page. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No apology needed. Of course I was annoyed when you made this page, but only at myself for not writing it sooner. Thanks, again, for the hint. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I hope its to your liking - I made it like all of mine, and the infobox is that of the abuse filter extension, which is the best I could find. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, ! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Edit filter warning
I noticed your edits at testwiki:Template:Edit filter warning and they certainly look like improvements; I wonder, if we should use (a modified version of) c:MediaWiki:ABFeasySubmit.js as commons does, which allows showing this form- I think that is significantly nicer for new users to use. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's still a work in progress. My main goal here is to have the "Page you were editing" field filled in automatically, and possibly link to the filter from the report as well. If you actually try to edit testwiki:User:Suffusion of Yellow/sandbox, you can see how that works.
 * As to c:MediaWiki:ABFeasySubmit.js, well, it could be modified to accept parameters like '&filterpage=foo&filterid=123" and pre-fill the fields, so it's possible in theory. I don't like the fact that it looks like an inputbox but saves the page without giving the user a chance to preview, though I suppose that's fixable as well. Still, I'd have similar concerns as had at Special:Permalink/880158096: if we're going to surprise people by running JS without telling them first, all these changes (and any future tweaks) would need as thorough a security review as anything in MediaWiki:Common.js, so it may not be worth the trouble. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have gadgets for filling in teahouse questions and at WP:DRN, so I don't think it is unreasonable/would be too much trouble to have one for EF/FP/R. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-DRN-wizard.js? I didn't realize those were checked by default, but I just checked with a never-touched-any-setting alt account, and it seems like they are. Though the teahouse one has been disabled for a while, which kind of makes my point abound the burden of maintaining global scripts. I suppose if an intadmin wants to volunteer to review/maintain it, a modified version of the Commons script might be possible. But if it saves the page as soon as the (possibly logged out) user clicks that button, I want no part of it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

effp-helper
Hey. Currently, you send a message that Merge will be attempted on save. However, after trying it a few times here, it seems like it doesn't attempt to merge, but just replaces the current page with how the page would have been had the edit been successful. Am I missing something? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just tried it on Special:AbuseLog/23087299 and got an edit conflict, as expected (merging would be impossible). Are you saying there was no edit conflict, and it just saved right away? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah. It would say "Page has changed, and 6 edit(s) have made been since the attempt. Merge will be attempted on save." but then not merge it --DannyS712 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Try it again. I think the only problem is that you were the only editor to touch page after Alucard's last edit, and the MediaWiki software won't merge two changes from the same user. Since I've edited the page now, you should get an edit conflict screen this time, which is correct, since merging is actually impossible. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. See File:EFFP-helper bug.jpg. Same thing as earlier, no conflict, just over write --DannyS712 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It will overwrite the contents of the edit form in all cases, without any attempt at merging (yet). When you click "Show preview" or "Show changes" it will show you, again, overwriting the subsequent edits (that part is a bug, but it's a really a misfeature of MediaWiki, which you will also encounter when editing a busy noticeboard or current event page). But when you actually click "Publish", it should either merge the changes or give you an edit conflict. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yep. It worked this time. Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But, given this explanation, can you also have it say that if no one else edited it since whenever, you will overwrite it? Just to make sure that people don't actually do that --DannyS712 (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be easy enough, since it already has to dig through the revisions to find the right revid anyway. Of course the right way to this would be to do the merge right away, before the edit form is modified, but I don't know any way to do that short of reimplementing diff3 in js, or convincing the MediaWiki devs to implement an "?action=merge" function in the API. Let me know if you can think of a way. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * what about pasting the old content into a blank (dedicated for this) page, applying the false positive edit, and then showing the result of that. If applying it causes a edit conflict, then just proceed straight to that --DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That ... would work, I think ... but off the top of my head that seems like it would require five edits for each use of the script: And it would create at least two watchlist entries for everyone who was watching any of the categories on the page. Don't know if people would like that. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Save the old revision.
 * 2) Save the latest revision.
 * 3) Save the disallowed edit, with back-dated timestamps (merge or conflict will happen here)
 * 4) Blank the page (Category pollution, etc.)
 * 5) Make the actual edit.
 * if you prepend/append nowiki tags, it will avoid the watchlist entries --DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On second thought, no, this wouldn't work, because all three revisions made to the (dedicated) page would be made by the same user, so, as above, MediaWiki will refuse to either merge or conflict, and just stomp over the earlier revisions. I'll update the message to warn about the problem. It's not really an issue when responding to WP:EF/FP/R requests, since the chance that you, out of all people, were the most recent editor to whatever page popped up there is rather low, to say the least. Clever idea, though. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but would be an issue if my idea User:DannyS712/not pending was implemented... Anyway, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the warning, at least. Better than nothing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll test it out! --DannyS712 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, I found a nice little MIT-licensed javascript three-way merge implementation and it seems to play well with typical wikitext pages. So don't get too attached to the current behavior of the script; it may possible to do the merge when the form is loaded, after all. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice. You might also want to see my next planned step at Edit filter/Requested/Archive_13 --DannyS712 (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Try installing both User:Suffusion of Yellow/diff3.js and User:Suffusion of Yellow/effp-helper-dev.js, if you dare. (There's no need to uninstall the old version). This version will attempt to do the merge before even modifying the edit form, so you can preview the final result of the merge. So long as you are careful about not clicking "Save" accidentally, you can try just any old entry in the abuse log, and see what happens. , so this isn't ready for prime time yet, but I'm curious as to how well it works at least on typical pages. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you tried it on my "not pending," and the result was this. I'm not sure what it was suppossed to do, but O(n^2) is a lot (I've done some time-complexity computer science) for this task. I'll look into it. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the script that did that. It was me contriving a page that would cause the script to freeze (it did). Only in highly repetitive pages is n big enough for the n^2 to matter, and with some work, it should be easy to detect those (rare) pages and switch to the old method. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay --DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)