@JourneymanGeek It's a network-wide thing.

@user1271772 still - escalate it via a mod. If you need CM attention, use the contact us link.

We do too, mostly

In this case its very much something under mod jurisdiction

@JourneymanGeek I would appreciate if you could communicate with me more politely in the future. For example, you could say "please" when you give me orders. Also, if you don't use the contact us link for things like this, why do you order other people to?

@user1271772 - that's a prearranged system we have with a specific CM, with a specific issue, done on an as-time-permits system

and that's hardly an order.

@user1271772 Typical procedure in this case is to flag one of their posts on the site for mod attention, or one of your own posts if they don't have any posts visible to you

Certificate out of date?, first link OK, second link failure: meta.superuser.com/guy meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/guy - seen on one site thus far; a bit busy to check more.

@Rob I got valid for both sites: 9 Feb to 10 May 2021.

except... the 404 image file for Meta Super User.... is 404 :/

@MetaAndrewT. 2nd link:

The first link redirects correctly:

Based on what I know, SSL certificates are cached and propagated progressively to individual browser, so I guess you have to wait until it fixes by itself..

... and just the per-child-meta (in this case): meta.physics.stackexchange.com/guy - and not the main site: physics.stackexchange.com/guy

GTG, back in 1 1/2

Oh. Least until the ticket smash is over - if y'all want to ping me for lost users it's good.

Flags are as per normal but there's no way I can keep up the front page on my phone 🤣

Checking meta.physics.stackexchange.com here digicert.com/help gives this:

Alternate example:

Shouldn't that be physics.meta....?

Certificate on my Chrome on Windows:

@JourneymanGeek What you wrote is not incorrect, but there is something odd about the setup / configuration:

The redirection script (for want of better terminology) is written in such a manner that it doesn't catch faults and the server that one is redirected to misconfigured (or configured inconsistently).

There's probably a way to set things up so that they are: 1. resolved, 2. unresolved, or 3. redirected to a server that is A + (not maybe A, maybe A+) - not that there's a reason to panic, just that something isn't correct; and not simply the URL being typed in some of the examples.

The subdomains are not configured the same everywhere, nor the same as the main domain.

The name "meta.physics. ..." is being recognized and redirected to a misconfigured server, while the clearly incorrect name "wrongsitename.physics. ..." is correctly not recognized and thus not redirected; returning the correct error.

@Rob https://meta.*.stackexchange.com/ URLs were never considered valid URLs. At the same time as SSL support was implemented, the URL scheme was changed, so only http://meta.*.stackexchange.com/ and https://*.meta.stackexchange.com/ URLs are valid.

^^^^^:

@M.A.R. k3

MSE homepage has been smashed...

They got many tickets for smashing MSE, waiting to be paid...

@b_jonas reject? That's a radical change.

@ShadowWizardisVaccinating I just posted it here for the alleged formatting problem.

@b_jonas oh lol

so it got approved?

@sha Cafe?

@TechExpertWizard espresso

@ShadowWizardisVaccinating No idea. It's a screenshot that bobble posted in chat. I haven't tracked down the actual change.

Well there's new policy that only things on the roadmap are fixed/added, so I doubt such a minor bug will be fixed.

@ShadowWizardisVaccinating Ehhh.... I'm preeeettty sure that's the standard reply for retagging stuff that was until now tagged status-review ;) New bugs can always be reported me thinks.

Yeah I'm not too fond of this ticket smash thing if the result is we put status-denied on everything were not going to work on in the coming 6 weeks.

It's okay. If they are going to work on it, we can put a status-review on it again. I asked

So, just flag anything again and we can retag it once it's on that list. I guess it does help to keep the stuff on the list for review to a minimum, makes other things surface easier :)

Yeah well then status deferred was the more appropriate tag. Denied implies they thibk the FR or bug are a terrible idea

Well I guess for some things that can be true ;)

Ofc there are terrible FR's around. But if they were all that terrible there wouldnt be as much pending status-*review posts

I'll see how it turns out... retagging something with status-declined seems reasonable based on the comment from Des under Sonic's answer.

If it's not, eventually someone will tell me :P

We once asked this which was status-declined and now we get a response but we're still unhappy? How is that possible?

No one ever likes to be proven wrong.

true

Correct me if I'm wrong

Rene and I got a deferred on double voting because there's no room on the roadmap, but it's an important (and probably not too difficult) thing to fix; and from the sounds of it 6-8 months would be optimistic - so declined isn't being misused (IMU).

@Rob In My Uranium?

Where else?

@M.A.R. Correction!

@Tinkeringbell of course new bugs can be reported, and to be honest, maybe it's better to decline than leave it in limbo like it used to be.

When I press "customize settings" (for the cookie consent form), nothing happens.

This is annoying.

It's giving me 403 forbidden for cdn.cookielaw.org/scripttemplates/otSDKStub.js.

Should I post this on Meta?