{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreianscipqbse7bqak5cs7gczmp2zccfscilpxohpetnvqw5lcot7mu",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mo2expypk252"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33298&p=275533#p275533",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-11T21:43:49.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "> Saw the \"orphaned script\" prompt earlier. Perhaps the name of the orphaned script(s) can be mentioned in that prompt?\n>\n> (sorry if I missed it, I think it wasn't there - it did appear but only after having restored the script).\n\nThe orphan script mechanism was introduced, because when I was testing different versions, I noticed that some userscripts were no longer being shown in the tab, despite them existing in the disk folder, so I decided to create a mechanism that automatically scan them and prompt you to bring them back, in case if they have disappeared. It is not something that is made for you to see every often.\n\nI also added it as a last-minute change in 3.7.0 and I haven't refined it, but I don't think it needs much refinement anyways, except adding it into the '.properties' for it to be translatable.\n\n\n> Essentially, I am suggesting these 4 available options for disabled scripts:\n\nIDK, it seems redundant to me. I was already thinking of giving the users the power to decide how often exactly the userscripts should be updated **and** whether to include the disabled scripts in the update or not. I may not consider myself to be so much of a \"power user\" (yes, it may seem shocking for the one who develops the userscript manager is just a casual user, at the end of the day), but I personally do not see anyone's desire in setting the disabled scripts to be updated less or more frequent than the enabled one.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Add-ons • Re: Working on a Greasemonkey fork for Pale Moon",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-11T21:43:49.000Z"
}