MediaWiki talk:Abusefilter-warning-deprecated

Error in Abusefilter-warning, datum missing

The filter 869 warning message doesn't seem to properly alert the editor as to which specific text/website is raising the alarm.

Due to the Attention text "Talk pages in this namespace are generally watched by many users" I will post a pointer to this talk entry. Pi314m (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Ritchie333 TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont)

@Pi314m: Agree that this is annoying, but a fix won't be possible until something like phab:T174554 is implemented. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 and Suffusion of Yellow, is there any progress on this matter? It's irritating that the warning is not specific. Experienced editors may be able to figure out which source is problematic, but one cannot expect that from others. I got a warning for a source that is not deprecated at all. That's not right. The template is simply wrong. A "deprecated source" is not the same as a source that is "considered generally unreliable". It is one that is totally and always considered unreliable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea, sorry, the filter has changed massively since I last had a look at it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I see that JzG seems to be the creator, so pinging him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, there is already some form of Abusefilter-warning that completely blocks, not just warns, against the addition of actual deprecated sources. The warning here is something else, and it needs to be modified so it only addresses sources that are "considered generally unreliable", and merely alerts the editor. It should of course tell the editor what source(s) is problematic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This filter as it stands only warns, not blocks, and addresses sources considered deprecated rather than generally unreliable. You may be thinking of the spam blacklist, unrelated to the edit filter, which prevents all edits adding the source.

This is phab:T216001/phab:T174554 and there is no news to report. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, deprecated sources are not "considered generally unreliable". They are considered totally unreliable. This Abusefilter-warning should only concern itself with sources "considered generally unreliable', with no mention of deprecated sources. It should also mention the dubious source that triggered the warning. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disable this awful fucking filter

In confusing primary sources for secondary, this filter violates our core WP:RELIABLE content guidelines and cannot be allowed to continue in operation until it has been brought into compliance.

I tried to upload an article with multiple references and this piece of shit filter flashed up to tell me my submission contained a deprecated source, but not which of the many, many references I included (some as primary sources to say the subject had been featured in Source X), that might have been, leaving me unable to address its concerned without trial-and-error removing each individual source and re-submitting over and over and over again.

This is absolutely deleterious to the project of building an encyclopedia and should be shut down until people have developed the competence to specify which source it is flagging and guide the user as to how they might refer to the notability of the sourcing without using it to support the article's claims. I have lost an hour's policy-compliant work due to the ineptitude of those who developed and allowed to be rolled-out this feature. Stop damaging the project and remove this filter. Thank you. 109.78.68.181 (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]