User talk:Kbh3rd/Vandal warning toolbox

Please leave feedback on this tool here. Thanks. --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Google

The Google lookup feature doesn't seem to always pick up what you have selected on the page. It might be related to browser version, but I'm not sure about that. It's sweet when it works right, and still pretty useful when it doesn't. --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Article name pop-up

I've got a separate development version going that pops up a dialog box to prompt for the name of the article, for those templates that have a *-n version. If you enter something, it uses {{subst:test1-n|articlname}}, e.g., otherwise it just uses {{subst:test1}}. I'll put that in whackamole.js soon if it feels right after I use it a bit. --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've installed it. It feels right. In almost all cases it's best to name the offended article in the message, and the text field in the dialog box is a much fatter target for positioning the mouse to paste that in. And this makes it easier for those cases when you don't want to name a single specific article. --Kbh3^rdtalk 18:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Scroll to bottom

I've found the method to make the textarea scroll to the bottom when one of the links adds text at the bottom. The script will be updated sometime today with that feature along with the pop-ups; I've decided that the pop-ups are an improvement. --Kbh3^rdtalk 16:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How to put text at the top instead of the bottom

Question: Do you know how to get this script to add text to the top of the text input area? I'm working on addaption your script for another tool. Thanks —akghetto ^talk 01:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the source of the whackEdit function, you'll see where it add text at the end with

f.wpTextbox1.value += "\n\n" + message + " ~~~~ <br clear=\"both\">\n" ;

That adds a concatenation of two newlines, the given message, your signature, and some HTML and a newline to the end of the current "value" of the text box. To put stuff at the front instead, the code would look like this:

f.wpTextbox1.value = newtext + f.wpTextbox1.value ;

That appends the current value of the textbox to the end of newtext (whatever you define that to be), and then sets the value of the textbox to that new composite string. You'd also probably want to not use the line with scrollTop in it that causes it to then scroll to the bottom of the edit textbox. Good luck! --Kbh3^rdtalk 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

selftest

I added a link for {{selftest}} (and {{selftest-n}}) because I've been needing it frequently. --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Since I've installed your vandal warning toolbox, "selftest" is the only template I remember having to actually type out on a regular basis. Thanks again for all your hard work on the toolbox- it works great! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice, thank you ;)

Very cool tool, thanks for making it! Glen Stollery ^{(My contribs) (talk)} 06:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

feedback on your vandal warning script

This thread has been moved here from my talk page.

Hello there, I've been trying out your vandal warning script, and it works quite well. I just have a suggestion on how you might improve it.

You might consider adding some of the more specific messages, such as {{spam}} or {{obscene}}. Of course, you don't want to go overboard and list every single warning template, as shown here.

Again, you've created a great tool for making the whole vandalism warning thing a lot easier. Now I don't have to ask myself, "Is test 2 for blanking, or is it for nonsense?" Thanks! --Tachikoma 16:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I don't want the list to get too long, but I'll consider it. I added the selftest message later when it was clear to me that it would be useful, and I'll consider those others. --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

ok!

• On this same topic, I wondered if it might be advisable to add a section heading along with sub'ing in the selected template to avoid having to remember to add one manually. (I don't like warnings that seem to be part of the previous unrelated section.) Should be straightforward to implement but thought I'd bring it up to you before I go off on my own to mess with it in my own userspace to avoid duplication of effort. Thoughts? ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:12, Tuesday [[April 11]] [[2006]] (UTC)

I know exactly what you're talking about. When a user has accumulated a few warnings, they all seemingly run together even though in separate paragraphs. However, in almost all cases where I leave vandalism warnings, where there is usually no other content except for warnings, I much prefer a format that does not use one section per warning. For serial vandals or, especially, shared vandal havens such as school IPs, I use the format that you can see here, and I spend considerable time reformating user talk pages in this manner when I leave messages. I think it makes it much easier for administrators deciding whether a block is deserved to discern the editor's pattern of vandalism and warning history. (The "before" version of that page is here.)

However, perhaps I can have my cake and you can eat it, too. If instead of editing the whole page, you click on the "+" to create a new section, the text that usually goes into the "Edit summary" lands in the section heading box. I may tweak the edit summaries so that they will contain the name of the article, if given, in such a manner that they will serve equally well for either edit summaries for me or for section headings for you (if you decide not to be persuaded to follow my example. ;-) --Kbh3^rdtalk 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point and it seems more than reasonable. Since I've got my hands full with other projects, I'm just going to stay linked to your script rather than modifying my own copy; if any changes are made, great. It certainly wasn't a sticking point for me — just something I thought I'd mention — and the bottom line is that I'm glad to have one more tool in my arsenal. :-) ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr 19:07, Tuesday [[April 11]] [[2006]] (UTC)

I have an updated version in test that I'm liking. The edit summaries are suitable for section headers, if that's how you choose to do it, and I'll have {{spam}}, {{obscene}}, and {{npov}} after the blocked warning since, in my experience, they're less used. I'll tidy up the code and update the toolbox page within a day or two. --Kbh3^rdtalk 18:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated 14Apr06

I've updated the tool script per the discussion above.

The edit summaries are more suitable for use as section headers, if that's your style (I don't care for it, as discussed above). The summary text will go into the section header box if you use the + link to add a new section to the talk page, rather than edit the whole page. (That was always the case, BTW.) If you edit the whole page, the summary text goes in the summary box.

Links for {{spam}}, {{npov}}, and {{obscene}} are added after the link for "blocked". The list is getting rather long, and I thought it better to add those less-used messages (in my m.o.), at the end. What do you think? This tool is certainly useful for everyone, not just admins. What do you think of having "blocked", which is only useful to admins, in the middle of the list of warning messages like this? Would it be better to have it at the end anyway?

I'll be updating the documentation page as soon as I finish with this edit to the talk page. --Kbh3^rdtalk 19:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested additions

I find myself often adding Template:SharedIP or Template:SharedIPEDU to user talk pages. It might be useful to add these to the wonderfull toolbox. They'll need to prompt for the name of the ISP or educational institution in question. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I use those templates frequently myself. But the process of finding the name of the institution or ISP takes time, and I always try to find a link to the institution to include, also. With the amount of time that that takes, the little extra that it takes to type in the {{sharedip|...}} is not, to me, a real inconvenience. Making the addition of the template with a single click is not going to significantly ease or speed the whole process. It is with the fast "drive-by" reverts that I find the toolbox most useful. And since I'm concerned about how long the list is getting, I'm not very enthused about adding those particular templates to the list right now. Thanks for your interest and the feedback. --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

how about localising for other languages?

Hello there, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind if your toolbox were adapted for use in other language Wikipedias?

I have to confess that I tried to do a bit of it myself for the French Wikipédia, but I'm severely hampered by my ignorance of javascript. It's also complicated by the fact that the French Wiki seems to work a little differently when dealing with vandals...warnings starting from test 0 up to test 3, then notifying an admin.

In any case, thanks for coming up with such a useful tool. --Tachikoma 02:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind it being used or adapted in any manner, and couldn't stop you in any case. (I assume the script is also submited under the assumption of the GFDL.) It wasn't made with ease of localizing in mind, and though it would be easier if it had been, it shouldn't be too hard. I'm not ready to start giving JavaScript lessons, but best wishes to anyone who tries it. --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated user warning templates

It's been suggested that this toolbox be updated to reflect the new warning templates, and I think that's a good suggestion. I'll have to see if my javascript skills are up to the task of somehow incorporating that matrix in a way that minimizes clicks and typing, maximizing efficiency. Suggestions welcome. --Kbh3^rdtalk 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't mean to nudge, but any progress on this? Love the tool. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had a go for the most common warnings, based on hacking the existing code ... my javascript skills are crude to say the least, but it sort of works. Anyone who wants is welcome to copy from User:Stephen_Burnett/monobook.js, and any improvements are welcome.

It would be specially nice if anyone knows how to get links to the various levels on one line in the toolbox links, that would make it a lot more compact. --Stephen Burnett 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to steal my edited version of this vandal tool. Here: User:Andy M. Wang/warn.js. -- Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kbh3rd, what is your take on the modified scripts? --Aarktica 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been a bit distracted from Wikipedia lately (though not totally absent). I'll try to take a look at this sometime over the next week. --Kbh3^rdtalk 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Update coming soon

I've finally gotten around to digesting the changes to the templates and devising an elegant (?) method to put the array of warnings into the toolbox. I'll update the JavaScript as soon as I rewrite the documentation to reflect the changes. Thanks for your patience. --Kbh3^rdtalk 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update; looking forward to the next version. Will it automatically update to include any newer templates? --Aarktica 00:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it won't automatically update. That would be cool, but I don't know how it would be done. But unless a major restructuring is needed again, updates shouldn't have to wait so long again. Figuring out how to get the multiple warning levels on one line is what took me so long. (It's not hard once you know the technique, but it took me a while to look that up.) --Kbh3^rdtalk 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Weird. My monobook was last updated about a month ago; yet my toolbox seems to have changed! --Aarktica 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood the question. I changed the script that your monobook.js incorporates by reference from my userspace. So your browser automatically snared the update. Yes, that will continue to happen in the future. This is why I was sure to update the documentation before changing the script – everyone who uses it will automagically get the update whether they want it or not. --Kbh3^rdtalk 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for making this happen. --Aarktica 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Updates done

The updated script is documented, too. Sorry for the delay! --Kbh3^rdtalk 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You won't see the changes if the old script is in your browser's cache – you may need to flush the cache. --Kbh3^rdtalk 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent: comprehensive, but compact - exactly what I was hoping for. Well done! --Stephen Burnett 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I love it too, many thanks! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion

Just added and tested your toolbox, and it's nice. Thank you for creating and updating it. I have one small suggestion... I think the block template looks much better if you imbed the signature - i.e. {{subst:uw-block1|sig=~~~~}}. Any interest in making that the default?--Kubigula (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Thanks for trying the tool and taking the time to give feedback. I'll see if I can get to that in the next few days. (It's too late in the evening for me to risk coding right now.) --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done been did. You may need to bypass your browser's cache to see any change. --Kbh3^rdtalk 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks for doing that.--Kubigula (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Praise and suggestion more praise

First of all, I love this tool! It's very easy to use, you don't have to install software, it's unobtrusive, and any user can use it! The Google search is a great idea (though I always forget to use it because my browser has a similar feature) and adding the link to the Warning Templates page was genius.

I do have a suggestion, if you have the time/desire: would it be possible to add a section with the current date? I think all you'd need to do is have the script add ==={{subst:#time:F Y}}=== above the warning template, but I'm not sure how to do that :) Thanks, JazzMan 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just read the comments above, (I didn't know about using the "add a new section" button!) and I see that adding this would probably be a nuisance. I think I like your format for warning vandals better anyway, so you can just ignore my suggestion :) JazzMan 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor change 9 March 09

I made a minor change this evening. Leading and trailing blanks are automatically removed from the text entered into the prompt for the article name, as is a trailing period (dot). I use copy+paste to grab that text, and on some of the screens I grab it from (Action complete, User contributions, etc.) it is an easier grab if I accept some of those extraneous characters, given how the page is presented and how Mozilla on Linux makes selections. There may be an article or two that end in a dot that could be a problem, but that ought to be a rare thing. --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Month-Year section headings

The tool will now automatically add a section heading of === Monthname 20xx === if such does not exist anywhere on the page. It doesn't matter whether there are spaces between padding the ===, but the month name must be spelled out in order for a pre-existing section to be detected. That should not be much of a problem; that's how it always seems to be added by other tools and users. It's been very transparent, reliable, and trouble-free in my test usage.

Hmmm... it might cause a problem for folks who add a new section instead of editing the whole user talk page like I always do. It ought to be easy to make it not do this date-section checking/adding if it's being used in a "new section" context. I'll test and update soon. --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I just reread JazzMan's suggestion and retraction above. I think that having it check for the heading before adding it should be the best of both worlds; it won't add it where it's not needed. What it won't do is to see if the previous edit is from the same month and put the heading above that edit rather than the latest. I've made this change because other tools that do add this month/year heading always put the heading after my warnings which were from the same month, which irked me. I assume they're making the same check I do, discussed above. So I decided it's best to go with the flow. --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition of WP:NOR and WP:BLP warning types

I've found myself requiring these, particularly the latter, and I finally got around to adding them to the list of warnings provided by the tool. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Does vandal warning toolbox work with the new Wikipedia build?

Hi! So, I've been using this toolbox for quite some time, though admittedly I've been less-than-active for the past couple years. However, I logged in today and found that many of the sidebar options from the toolbox weren't working with the new version of Wikipedia. Is there something I need to do to change the code, is it something on my end, or has the toolbox been retired? Thanks for your response! Eric (EWS23) 02:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I guess I should note that I've long had a copy-paste version of the script to change the formatting slightly. If the fix has been made in the parent-code, I could either get that or just revert to calling the parent code in my monobook.js. Eric (EWS23) 02:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're using the new Vector theme you can follow this tool's installation instructions, substituting vector.js in place of monobook.js. I didn't need to make any other changes — I just copied all of my monobook.js into my vector.js. I suppose I need to update the documentation. You can double-check which skin you're using in the Appearance tab of your preferences; the Javascript page name, under your user page, takes its name from the skin, though all lower-case. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Worked like a charm, thanks! I'm not on often enough to catch such important chatter, but still like to keep a diligent eye out every once in a while. Thanks again! Eric (EWS23) 02:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor fix 9 October 2011

The "minor edit" checkbox has disappeared from the edit page when first creating a page. I guess a page creation is never considered "minor". The script tries to uncheck that box, and the script would abort when trying to uncheck a nonexistent element. The symptoms were no message after the month header was added, and the "watch this page" checkbox would not get unchecked. I've added a check to the code for the existence of the minor edit checkbox before trying to change it, and all is well again. --Kbh3^rdtalk 05:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Additions 10 December 2011

I added "Copyright" (uw-copyright) and "Blatant" (uw-bv) to the warnings menu. I need the copyright warning more frequently than the blatant violation, but decided that the latter might be useful to have. I hope others find these additions useful also. --Kbh3^rdtalk 20:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.9 odd behavior

FYI - I've been using a heavily modified version of your script for five or so years now. Thanks, by the way - fantastic time saver, and I can avoid all the fancy tools. It looks like a "bug" popped up that only let the first new menu line appear on the sidebar. I was able to comment out the use of the "akeytt();" function, which appears to have been depreciated as a function. This appears to have fixed my version of the script. If you see the same behavior, try this first - the redraw does not appear to be necessary anymore. Maybe it will save you a few minutes of poking around... Kuru (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks – for the tip and the good words. I noticed this problem but haven't had a chance to look into it too much yet. I haven't been doing too much editing/patroling just lately. Hope to have my copy fixed very soon in any case. --Kbh3^rdtalk 17:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had fixed it on the 4th of March and not realized it! I had found that the call to akeytt() was the problem, commented that out, and tested. Unfortunately, I'd forgotten that in my personal environment I was using a different instance of the script that I use for trying ideas and testing changes. I changed the main, documented copy and was getting frustrated that the change had no effect for me. So for everyone using my version of this, except for me, it should have been fixed a few days ago. --Kbh3^rdtalk 17:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's get some welcome messages

S0 the tool is fabulous but I was wondering if we could select a few nice welcome templates to be added to the toolbox please. :) Welcome 1 2 3 4

Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 03:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not too far-fetched. I'll look into adding something soon. --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate one of mine :) for inclusion as it allows for a personalized message to be inserted, check it out. Thanks for considering it.

• Welcome Message

Firefox 23 blocking "mixed active content"

Lest anyone else experiences the same problems I had using this with Firefox 23+ with HTTPS, here's a the fix, an explanation, and a tip.

Fix

Use the importScript function to bring this code into your environment instead of documentWrite. See the current installation instructions for the full syntax.

Explanation

Firefox 23+ by default will not load non-HTTPS active content (e.g., scripts) into a page loaded with HTTPS. If you use the documentWrite function with a full URL starting with "http://", then it will be blocked as being "mixed active content". An explanation of the new Firefox behavior is in this thread at Stack Overflow.

Tip

Even though the importScript function is the proper way to do this, you could drop the "http://en.wikipeda.org" part of the URL and continue to use documentWrite. That would cause the browser to employ the same protocol and the same host as the containing document. Though that method is not recommended here, generally in HTML links, CSS, etc., it is probably best to leave off the protocol and host if referencing anything known to be from the same source as the referencing document. That has always made things more portable (if you were to move all your content to another server), and it also avoids this new issue.

--Kbh3^rdtalk 14:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The last bit

Hello Kbh3rd,

I installed your script yesterday and I love it already, it makes warning / messaging a user faster. I wanted to ask if the last bit of the user warnings, "br clear="both" /", serves any purpose, I mean, it does not seem to make a diff (pun intended ;-) if I delete it or not, as far as the text of the warning itself is concerned? Cheers, Poepkop (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)