User talk:Animum/Archives/2009/August

Softblock vs. Hardblock

Hi
I'm curious about this edit: You hardcoded the softblock options of {{uw-softerblock}} although they are still passed via parameter anyway, and removed the softblock options from {{uw-botublock}}. How come?
Amalthea 13:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it was a mistake—I thought I removed the options from softerblock instead of botublock. Fixed.

And thanks for alerting me when I make absent-minded mistakes. —Animum (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. But I'm still curious, why do you prefer maintaining the softblocks in that list instead of passing the options as parameters? I thought I was smart to pass them as parameters instead, and was actually thinking about moving the information needed to create the user notification down there as well, to keep everything related to one block option neatly in one place.
Cheres, Amalthea 17:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was also considering doing that because one day it struck me as cumbersome to have to update two and sometimes three functions for one new block option. It would be less aesthetically pleasing, but having all of the parameters defined in one function would certainly be more convenient than having different ones defined in different functions. —Animum (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I take some of that back. I wouldn't be against removing the hard-coded exceptions to the default parameters, but the current warn system uses much less code than would the one proposed. Now, we have to add three lines of code, one of which is a closing brace, for a new block (I probably should put the function on the same line as the if); if we defined them in the drop-down link itself, we'd have to update every new block link. —Animum (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always a tradeoff between code complexity and ease of maintainance. And it's probably more complex than what I was seeing at first anyway, I haven't read through the script from top to bottom. Anyway, I was thinking of a setup like this:

Extended content

blockoptions = { 'spam': [ { 'blockreason':'[\[WP:Spam|Spamming]] links to external sites', 'notice-content': function(duration,isIp){return "{\{subst:uw-sblock|" + (duration == "indefinite" ? "indef=yes" : "time=" + duration) + "|subst=subst:|sig=y}}";}, 'notice-summary' : "You have been blocked for adding [\[WP:Spam|spam]] links to external sites.", 'variants': { 'spam+3 days': ['3 days',], 'spam+1 week': ['1 week',], 'spam+2 weeks': ['2 weeks',], 'spam+1 month': ['1 month',], 'spam+3 months': ['3 months',], 'spam+6 months': ['6 months',], 'spam+1 year': ['1 year',], 'spam+indef': ['indefinite',], }, }, ], 'vandalism': [ { 'blockreason':'[\[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]]', 'notice-content':function(duration,isIp){return "{\{subst:uw-vblock|time=" + duration + "|subst=subst:|sig=y}}";}, 'notice-summary':function(duration,isIp){return 'Due to recent [\[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] from this ' + (isIP ? "IP address" : "account") + ", it has been blocked for " + duration + ".";}, 'variants': { 'V+24 hours': ['24 hours',], 'V+31 hours': ['31 hours',], 'V+48 hours': ['48 hours',], 'V+3 days': ['3 days',], 'V+1 week': ['1 week',], 'V+2 weeks': ['2 weeks',], 'V+1 month': ['1 month',], 'V+3 months': ['3 months',], 'V+6 months': ['6 months',], 'V+1 year': ['1 year',], 'Vau+indef': ['indefinite',], 'Voa+indef': ['indefinite',], } }, { 'blockreason':'{\{uw-vaublock}}', 'notice-content':'{\{subst:uw-vaublock|sig=y|subst=subst:}}', 'notice-summary':'Due to vandalism and this account\'s name, it has been blocked indefinitely.', 'variants': { 'Vau+indef': ['indefinite',], }, }, { 'blockreason':'[\[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]]-only account', 'notice-content':'{\{subst:uw-voablock|subst=subst:|sig=y}}', 'notice-summary':'You have been blocked indefinitely because your account is being used only for [\[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]].' 'variants': { 'Voa+indef': ['indefinite',], }, }, ], 'username': [ { 'blockreason': '{\{uw-ublock}}', 'notice-content': '{\{subst:uw-ublock|sig=y|subst=subst:}}', 'notice-summary': 'You have been blocked for a violation of the [\[Wikipedia:Username policy|username policy]].', 'variants': {'Name+indefinite': ['indefinite', false, false], }, }, { 'blockreason': '{\{uw-softerblock}}', 'notice-content': '{\{subst:uw-softerblock|sig=y|subst=subst:}}', 'notice-summary': 'You have been blocked for a violation of the [\[Wikipedia:Username policy|username policy]].', 'variants': {'Promosofter+indefinite': ['indefinite',], }, }, { 'blockreason': '{\{uw-uhblock}}', 'notice-content': '{\{subst:uw-uhblock|sig=y|subst=subst:}}', 'notice-summary': 'You have been blocked for an egregious violation of the [\[Wikipedia:Username policy|username policy]].', 'variants': {'Hardname+indefinite': ['indefinite',], }, }, { 'blockreason': '{\{uw-spamublock}}', 'notice-content': '{\{subst:uw-spamublock|sig=y|subst=subst:}}', 'notice-summary': 'You have been blocked because your username seems to exist only to promote a corporation or group.', 'variants': {'Spamname+indefinite': ['indefinite',], }, }, { 'blockreason': '{\{uw-botublock}}', 'notice-content': '{\{subst:uw-botublock|sig=y|subst=subst:}}', 'notice-summary': 'You have been blocked for a violation of the [\[Wikipedia:Username policy|username policy]].', 'variants': {'Botname+indefinite': ['indefinite', false, false,], }, }, ], };

From that definition structure with hopefully less redundancy, the menu is built on load. It's a tad uglier then what I had in mind at first, and even more so when it needs to start to prompt for sock accounts and the like (that why there are anonymous functions up there).
Well, just a thought, if you ever plan to do major changes you can think about it. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Easyblock

Heya, I'm sure you noticed I added editwar and 3rr blocks a few days back. I was curious however if it'd be possible for easyblock to pop up and ask for us if we want to enter the article they were warring on so that it can be noted in the block template? I know you've got something similar for socking, ie it asks the name of the master. Just curious and thanks for the fantastic script mate. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 13:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done — 1, 2, 3. —Animum (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a little something-something for you...

For this little shining example of wiki-clue...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

(X! · talk)  · @084  ·  01:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But, but, but... ! —Animum (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've commented in the ANI thread. I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it's all so very punny. :-P —Animum (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your apology, and I assure you it is graciously accepted. I don't know how strong your dislike of me is, and frankly I can't be bothered to check right now, but you apologized for the misunderstanding (whereas I figured you'd disappear), and for that you have my respect. Keepscases (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't dislike you; I simply disagreed with you in Matt's RFB. I wondered before how people can't tell when a certain phrase is an idiom, but now I realize that it is much easier than I previously thought! I apologize for any snarkiness that might have come across in my comments; they were the fault of my idiomatic ignorance. —Animum (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can assure that Animum is a good individual and a good administrator, even though he steps and trips sometimes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

disabling user talk page editing

Hiya. We're having a big upsurge in promotional pages like User talk:IngeMada12, where the user comes back and adds the spam back into the talk page after it's been deleted. How would you feel about adding a 5th option to the username submenu in easyblock that disables talk page editing? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd feel much more comfortable adding it to the Spam menu—not all spammers necessarily have spam-usernames. —Animum (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done —Animum (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Peculiar bug

Trying to get User:B's RFA sends me to the main page. (I created the redirect...) –xeno^talk 20:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Full version of NICE to be released

Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.

The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Animum/userrights.js

Is there any chance that you could update this so that it can work with the autoreviewer usergroup? I imagine that it would be extremely helpful. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my delay. I should be able to add this bit over the weekend, and it should be able to work for all rights granted via RFP. That said, however, it will not work in cases where the right was granted in July 2009 or before July 2008, and it will not be susceptible to renames. Yours, —Animum (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)