Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2020 June 11

= June 11 =

DRN page on Wikipedia continuously crashes
For some reason, every page on Wikipedia works fine and loads quickly, but when I open WP:DRN/V, the whole page freezes and stops responding. When opened in an incognito tab it works fine, so I assume it's down to one of my scripts, but after disabling and enabling them, I can't figure out which one. What should I do? — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 07:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disable all, then enable half of the scripts, and keep enabling half of the remaining disabled scripts until crash. The problem is in the most recently enabled bunch. Backtrack by disabling it and next try enabling just half of that bunch, and so on, until you are down to just a single script for which enabling or disabling makes the difference. For example, you have scripts 1 through 7. Enable 1,2,3,4 → no crash. Also enable 5,6 → crash. Back to 1,2,3,4. Enable 5 → no crash. Then the problem is in script 6. (See binary search for the logic behind this.)  --Lambiam 11:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * For the answer to your question, see the previous comment. However, I’d like to mention something else: you have a lot of scripts, imported from many other users’ userspaces. (I suppose other users must do this too, but you are the first one I have actually looked at.) This worries me, from a security point of view. Perhaps we should have some kind of package system here, to properly control and monitor updates. Has this been discussed anywhere? Brianjd (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User scripts/Techniques contains the sentence "For users that have a lot of scripts installed, reloading them all may take up a lot of time." So having a multitude of scripts is apparently not that exceptional. WP:TECHPUMP may be a better place to discuss the possibilities and pros and cons of a package system for scripts. --Lambiam 15:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I opt out of ads with only a triangle and no X?
I am now forced to read each Saturday's Charlotte Observer online since they decided not to print one, claiming they were adapting to readers' needs. I think they're adapting to their own needs. At first there were no ads other than the ones appearing in what looked like a print newspaper. Now, the newspaper page appears to the right of a section with ads which cannot be removed. Contacting the Observer does no good whatsoever. If you call the 800 number, you get people in other countries who can't actually help you. Emailing once at least got me canned responses but no results. Now I don't even get the canned responses. I did see fewer ads the first week after my complaint but they were back the next week. For a particularly offensive ad with no X in the upper right corner, I tried clicking on the ad and sending an email to the advertiser. You would think they'd want to work with me and allow me to see less offensive ads for their product. No response from them. Clicking on the triangle doesn't seem to give me any way of opti9ng out, while clicking on the X gets me a response similar to "We'll try not to show any more ads like that".

Or I could just block all ads, as I warned that advertiser I would do if I didn't get the help I needed. It's very tempting as just today my computer froze twice and didn't unfreeze for ten minutes, and I suspect something about the ads of being the reason. I could contact the specific web site where the ads appear but without error messages other than "[site] is not responding" (if I'm lucky), they probably won't be able to help.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the website does not allow you to opt out of an ad, then there is no other way than using ad blocking. However, some websites detect that your browser is using an ad blocker and then refuse to serve any content. In particularly obnoxious cases, I cover the offending part with another, neutral window. --Lambiam 09:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to do that. If you could tell me how to show you what I see, maybe you could help me with that.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Use a Firefox-like browser with AdBlock and/or stop reading the offending website. I guarantee you'll be better off either way. I think by threatening to use an ad blocker, at best you're going to get some private laughs in the ad department. 93.136.207.230 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't stop reading the offending web site. The newspaper is no longer printing a Saturday edition. And no, I'm not changing browsers.


 * Also, don't you think the offending advertiser would be willing to figure out a way to give me a less offensive ad rather than being blocked entirely? And by the way, it was really, really bad yesterday. I just kept getting that same ad again and again and again. Help from the web site of the newspaper is obviously going to be pointless.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . In my country we have the Advertising Standards Authority, to whom complaints about inappropriate or offensive advertising can be made and who now and then do cause such ads to be withdrawn. Might there be a similar organisation in the USA? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.27.125 (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There might be something, but I'm not sure what they would do. For example, the one woman who is completely nude could probably be interpreted as being like the paintings of the great masters.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you are receiving nudity in "ads" on a website then I would consider malware/adware as a very real possibility. Elizium23 (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an ad for a company as such, but an ad for searches. But as I said, it's the type of nudity that appeared in art.


 * The ads I really have a problem with are ones that are offensive because they distract with a lot of moving information. If I am trying to concentrate this is a nightmare. In those ads the people are properly dressed.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Advertisers have no interest in working with you to figure out which ads you'd be most comfortable with.
 * Besides the fact that they don't really care what you think, their business is in volume and they're not equipped to deal with people as individuals.  The cost of having a staff member interact with you would probably surpass your lifetime value as a viewer of ads. ApLundell (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They would be interested in not having the whole world know how I feel about them.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, "threatening" to use an ad blocker (I did find out how to get and install one and it was so easy) Implies that I'm open to seeing ads and they ought to be grateful that I'm one of those. I try to watch TV commercials and I actually do try to look at ads in the real newspaper too.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * An additional benefit is I can copy and paste URLs from gocomics comments. There seems to be a rule on gocomics against links you could click on. Today, I don't have trouble with copying and pasting.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)