MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown/Archive1

(create an archive)

Topic

See also the random block reasons list and your very own personal block reasons list

Umm, wouldn't that be TAFKA? -Smyth 14:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Oopsie, I should have nown better! human 14:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Tee hee hee. -Smyth 14:19, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Uh, I don't get it. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:11, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Follow the history, it was all about Bohdan changing his name to Oscar. human 01:04, 10 February 2008 (EST)

So I gathered. But I still don't understand "TAFKA". -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:17, 10 February 2008 (EST)

It originated when Prince changed his name to that weird symbol. In normal characters he became referred to as "TAFKAP": "The artist formerly known as Prince". hth, human 15:02, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Random reason

So you only get to pick the one below the bolded text? Hmmmm. I guess that's sort of cool in that the blocker knows what the "random" pick is before using it, but I'm not sure that it gives us anything useful... ħuman 18:56, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

It stops the list getting ridiculously long, which is was doing. --JeevesMkII 19:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Can you make it so there is a second, inner drop-down box that can be ignored or opened up? Giving the blocker full choice of silly reasons? (as if they can't simply type in the "other reason" box...) ħuman 19:56, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Not really without more hassle than I'm willing to go through to make it work, I'm afraid. --JeevesMkII 06:24, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

What a pity :( ħuman 15:12, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Being one of; Tit, Fred, Drew Pickles

I don't like having this on the list. 1. It gives recognition to the trolls (much like the now defuncted vandals category). 2. It implies we block people for who they are rather than what they do. OK, we do basically block these users on sight, but that's because all they do is black pages or insert obscenities. Those are the things we should block them for. Unless there's a strong objection, I will remove this one from the list. We can block Fred, Tit, etc. using "unfunny vandalism", "blanking pages", etc. as the reason. weaseLOId~ 16:50, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

That's what I assumed everyone would do. I think it was just a bit of a snarky in joke that all the editors know who they were and you would then use it in friendly blocks. I don't know. Though since when was the vandals category defunct? ArmondikoV^bomination 17:06, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Ten days ago. To clarify, it was just a category for putting on vandals' user pages & had no real function. Hence the deletion (see category talk:vandals). The vandals group is still fully functional & is a separate thing for applying the vandal break. weaseLOId~ 18:51, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Whilst I supported the deletion of the vandal category, as one of the contributors to this particular entry, I am now going to be complete hypocrite and oppose its deletion. Tit, Fred, Drew Pickles and My Password is______, are the people that blank pages and add spam links so by having this one entry we have got rid of the need for three. That is efficiency. Besides we know what they are going to do Tit will delete the frontpage, Fred will try yet again to add the link to "god hates fags" to Fred Phelps' article and Drew Pickles is going to spam link some crap. As for My Password is______ he is a surprisingly honest guy as it is true his password is what he say it is. They have become RationalWiki folklore and I would like to see them stay. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 19:11, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Nx

You trying to tell me something? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 17:07, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Yes... -- Nx ^talk 17:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Having them here makes other users able to use them, and it makes it less likely for typos. And it doesn't hurt the page. Therefore, deleting the reasons is pointless. So don't. And since you annoyed me: "Nx" (what an absurd user name that is), you may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement. I wasted time with your unsubstantial additions and you say you don't believe Jesus is God, so my confidence is over three standard deviations away from the mean that you're insane from San Francisco values. You also refuse to accept that prayer in school stops drug abuse. I repeat: the half-life of Carbon-14 may have only been 100 years at the time of Christ. You're not going to be allowed to rant in a nonsensical manner or smear our work.--Andy Schlafly 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

--"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 17:50, 5 January 2009 (EST)

EDIT WAR!! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 17:50, 5 January 2009 (EST)

We shouldn't have a gazillion of them. Quality over quantity -- Nx ^talk 17:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Edit war

Yet another victim of ConservapediaUndergroundResistor's scorched earth policy of relentless edit warring. CUR, if you get reverted on something more than twice, please take it to the talk page & open a discussion; don't just yell "LEAVE IT ALONE" into an edit comment.

This page should be a fairly short list of block reasons than anybody is likely to use. If you want to add something silly that you think might catch on, go ahead. If it doesn't catch on, somebody will take it out sometime later. But adding arcane things that only mean anything to you (not talking in Gungan, something about an otter which I don't think you've mentioned elsewhere) is just weird. If you want to block for these reasons, you can write them in manually when you block somebody. But please don't put them on a list that everybody has to look through when they need to block.

Let's discuss what you want to add here, shall we? Thanks. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Offenses to the wonderful, adorable Harry Potter

Doing a Schlafly

Bye Firing turbobanners

Talking with a Gungan accent

Not talking with a Gungan accent

Offenses to the wonderful, adorable weasel

Offenses to the wonderful, adorable rusty-spotted cat

Offenses to the wonderful, adorable otter

preemptive strike

Pretty neat, huh? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 17:54, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Offenses to the wonderful, adorable Harry Potter

don't get it

Doing a Schlafly

don't get it

Bye

unfunny

Firing turbobanners

unfunny

Talking with a Gungan accent

only applies to you

Not talking with a Gungan accent

applies to everyone else

Offenses to the wonderful, adorable weasel

don't get it

Offenses to the wonderful, adorable rusty-spotted cat

don't get it

Offenses to the wonderful, adorable otter

don't get it

preemptive strike

unfunny

-- Nx ^talk 17:59, 5 January 2009 (EST)

The only one of those that makes the slightest bit of sense to me is Doing a Schlafly, which I suppose could apply to any Assfly-esque bullying or intimidation tactics. -Redback^G'day 18:08, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Anyone else want special block reasons? Because I look silly being the only person with them. And I didn't add the weasel comment. That was weaseloid. And calling them turbobanners is sort of a cute pun. As for a preemptive strike, it's an excuse to be used if you're afraid someone will shortly vandalize or block you. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 18:02, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Then you should move them to a subpage of your userpage and copypaste from there. -- Nx ^talk 18:06, 5 January 2009 (EST)

(Edit conflict) I agree with Nx. I've taken out the Harry Potter & weasel ones, as they were my edits & were only intended to mock CUR's. That still leaves eight that CUR has added onto what was previously a concise list of about thirteen reasons, & I really can't forsee anybody other than CUR wanting to use the new ones much. I see that they've been subsectioned into a "CUR's block reasons" list, but they still appear in the block menu, & it's setting a precedent for other people to do the same (as I see CUR is now inviting them to do), which would leave us with an endless menu of obscure gibberish. Better to put these on your own user page, & then just copy & paste them when you want to block somebody with them. Maybe add one or two reasons to the menu here, if you genuinely think that other people will appreciate & use them. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:09, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I did the subsectioning to at least bring some sanity -- Nx ^talk 18:12, 5 January 2009 (EST)

EZ edit button 1

In my opinion this is garbage. We should take it out.--Bob^{bing up} 18:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Look. I took out the rusty cat one. Turbobanners is actually pretty funny, preemptive strike is a legitament reason ('specially if you're Bush), the otter one makes about as much sense as offenses to the great lord jerborea, and the doing a Schlafly one is perfect for use on talk pages. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 18:16, 5 January 2009 (EST)

(Edit conflict) Preemptive strike is OK, but please take the Iraq War link out of it - it looks weird in a block reason. The Jerboa thing isn't on this page; it's at RationalWiki:Random Block Reasons - a list of silly block reasons, only one of which appears at random each time you use the block menu. That might be the best place for one or two of yours, but please exercise restraint, otherwise you're just flooding it with your own in-jokes which nobody else gets. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:25, 5 January 2009 (EST)

And of course we all get this one: Entertain me little man! Dance! DANCE FOR ME! Mwuahahahahahahaha! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 18:28, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I don't know who created these but I think the following should all go:

• Keelhauled for being unpirate
• Not using multiple accounts
• Doing a Schlafly
• Bye
• Firing turbobanners
• Talking with a Gungan accent
• Not talking with a Gungan accent
• Offenses to the wonderful, adorable otter
• preemptive strike

If people want to write them in they can.--Bob^{bing up} 18:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, adding one that is truly funny (ie people like it and leave it) would be one thing, but using it as a personal unfunny joke sandbox is just silly. ħuman 18:39, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I didn't make the first two. The rest, I made. And only you have said it's garbage. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 18:25, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Lol. What do you think Nx, Redback & I have been saying for the last half-hour?? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:28, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with Bob. They're mostly garbage. Pre-packaged lulz are for losers. TheoryOfPractice 18:29, 5 January 2009 (EST)

So does that mean we should get rid of all of them except unfunny vandalism? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 18:30, 5 January 2009 (EST)

[EC] No, I don't think anybody's suggested that. I've taken it down to the basics to show which they are: ones that are used regularly. I don't really mind some of the others going back in which might occasionally get used (e.g. doing a Schlafly or preemptive strike) but please think twice about adding ones which are really only of interest to you. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

It means that we should stop adding new ones that nobody but you will use. -Redback^G'day 18:38, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Because this one is so often used, and of course we all get this one: Entertain me little man! Dance! DANCE FOR ME! Mwuahahahahahahaha! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 18:50, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Better now? -- Nx ^talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Also, there's no such thing as extremely unfunny vandalism, as per Help:How_to_handle_vandalism -- Nx ^talk 18:58, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Extremely unfunny would be rascist propoganda. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 18:59, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Any ones I can re-add? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 19:15, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, just not all of them please. Keep it down to one or two, three if you must, which you think people other than you might actually use. I've already given my opinion of which ones might be OK, as have others. See comments above. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:21, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Damn, who removed "Entertain me little man! Dance! DANCE FOR ME! Mwuahahahahahahaha!"??? "Because this one is so often used" - it's been used a lot. How sure are you that it isn't? ħuman 19:31, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I did, because CUR was complaining so much about it. If it's used a lot, restore it. -- Nx ^talk 19:33, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I was trying to say that if that is there, why not my reasons? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 19:34, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I'm not too sure about preemptive strike. I mean, how often do you see yourself (or anyone else) actually using it? It's not often people will be blocked because we sort of maybe think they might be considering thinking about doing something wrong (I know what I said). As for your comment above, the logic there seems a bit off. "That boy over there got a lolly, I want one too"? -Redback^G'day 19:38, 5 January 2009 (EST)

HYPOCRIT! ;-) --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 19:44, 5 January 2009 (EST)

HIPPOGRIFF!! ;-| ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Um... Your all-caps, misspelt and misplaced comment makes no sense, nor does it address the issue here. Care to try again? -Redback^G'day 19:47, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Let's leave things as they are & just get on with other things rather than warring any further over this. As it stands CUR's only added s couple, which is fair enough. If nobody's using them, they might get removed again in due course, but let them stand for now. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Fair point, we'll just see if it gets used. I'm still a bit confused about the hypocrit(sic) comment, but I'll just pretend I didn't see it, eh? -Redback^G'day 19:59, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Custom block reasons

I've implemented per-user custom block reasons. Right now everyone will see a new entry in the block reasons list (/* Empty */), but if you create a subpage of your userpage called CustomBlockReasons, and fill it up like the random block reasons page (i.e. no formatting), you'll get those in the list. Also, you will usually have to force reload (shift-f5 in firefox) the block page to see any changes -- Nx ^talk 07:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Excellent. It works perfectly. ħuman 14:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Glad you like it, though it was mostly copypasting someone else's work. -- Nx ^talk 14:19, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Should we go ahead and build one for CUR, with all his pet block reasons? ħuman 14:32, 6 January 2009 (EST)

He already did it. You can remove anything that's left from this page. I'm currently combining the random and custom block reason scripts into one script to reduce overhead btw. Done -- Nx ^talk

This is what sets RW apart from alother wikis. Neat! -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 14:37, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Doesn't work after the server change. Nx's looking into it. Anyone want to help? Also, the insert name here thing insn't working. Neither is the sig. Now you don't have the options above the editing window. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 18:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

There's no javascript. I've asked tmtoulouse. You'll have to wait for his answer. -- Nx ^talk 18:50, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Email him, maybe? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^{can't spell criticism (yes I can!)} 18:53, 8 January 2009 (EST)

I am here, and will get to it, but there is literally a list of things that need fixing, I appreciate the heads up on anything not working and will get to it but sometimes not right away. Certain issues just have to take precedence. tmtoulouse 18:55, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Bork?

I'm not getting the random reasons or my custom reasons... is there trouble afoot? Blue (pester) 03:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, someone fucked it up, I suspect. But since I also suspect they care, it will probably be furry by tomorrow. ħuman 06:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not open to editing?

It would be nice if sysops could edit this. B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 02:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What did you want to add? 02:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Suspected Spambot: Something snarky and apologetic here." B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 03:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice, but since everyone and their dog is a sysop, it can't. -- Nx / talk 05:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

let's make them all techs. 13:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

" it can't." Why not? It's not like edits can't be undone, like on other pages, no? B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 18:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, who the fuck is "Ponder Stibbons" and why is he allowed to edit the page? B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 18:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Letting sysops edit interface pages would be dangerous. If they're allowed to edit this page, they would also be able to edit Common.js and Vector.js. Ponder Stibbons is Nx's sock. Blue (pester) 18:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Remember when Jeeves fucked with people's passwords? Imagine that but not in the humorous way. Ty^talk 19:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Update

I think we can remove the reference to the Loya Jirga now. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

...and two months later, I come here to say the same thing. Where's a crat when you need one? Rennie McGreet (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sock of liberal atheist communist troll, vandal, bandit, pirate, ninja, and all around awesome guy, Trent Toulouse

Based on this can I add Sockpuppet of Jewish Bolshevik Sasha Ehrenstein? –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 05:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Learn some humility. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not like people from TOW don't already think we're Jewish Bolsheviks. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 12:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Metapedia isn't the other wiki, they don't think we're Jewish Bolsheviks, and even if they did, why would anyone joke about anyone being your sockpuppet. I confess I understand less and less of what you talk about. 13:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I blame people feeding the trolls debating the MRAs who show up here. I suppose it can be funny, but it gets tedious and only makes them think they have a chance. This reminds me I made a note to vandal bin an MRA who was going on about Anita Sarkeesian. She should have a look at Tanya Pavelovna; her mind would be blown. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 01:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't vandal bin anyone without getting a second opinion Ehrenstein. Seriously; if someone is blanking whole sections of the wiki don't vandal bin them without someone else saying it's OK. You haven't got the hang of it yet. Tielec01 (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)