Mendel17257@legacy41699584 (talk | contribs) (→"removing unneeded checks": counterargument) |
PanSola@legacy41563399 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:I know you want the regexp check to protect you. I think that we can protect you and the wiki the way we usually do (e.g. against vandalism), and that the name of the message and the changed page appearance will alert RC patrol that something strange is going on when it's not a mainpage preview. ''The benefit to removing this check'' is that the mainpage drafts can be e.g. in user space, and that the script won't break if we rename the mainpage (it's often renamed to the name of the wiki). |
:I know you want the regexp check to protect you. I think that we can protect you and the wiki the way we usually do (e.g. against vandalism), and that the name of the message and the changed page appearance will alert RC patrol that something strange is going on when it's not a mainpage preview. ''The benefit to removing this check'' is that the mainpage drafts can be e.g. in user space, and that the script won't break if we rename the mainpage (it's often renamed to the name of the wiki). |
||
:For the skin check, it would protect a handful of of monobook users from two DOM accesses, while removing that check removes a string comparison for everyone else and makes the code easier to read. --<span class="sigpic">[[User:M.mendel|◄mendel►]]</span> 21:09, November 10, 2010 (UTC) |
:For the skin check, it would protect a handful of of monobook users from two DOM accesses, while removing that check removes a string comparison for everyone else and makes the code easier to read. --<span class="sigpic">[[User:M.mendel|◄mendel►]]</span> 21:09, November 10, 2010 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | ::The original request did ''not'' extend exception to pages in the user space. If individual users want to experiment, they are welcome to create editcopy2, editcopy3, editcopy/PanSola etc. And if desired, we should request explicit permission for the use of the script in user space (the script can easily be modified to check for being a subpage of main page OR in userspace). Renaming of the main page is a major enough event that if it happens the cost of having to modify the regexp is insignificant. I argue the benefit provided by the removal of the check is not worth the potential of losing the exceptional permission should it become abused. -[[User:PanSola]] (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png|link=User talk:PanSola]]) 21:31, November 10, 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:31, 10 November 2010
"removing unneeded checks"
I disagree with the regexp being an unnecessary check. As the original requester for the exception, and the first draft writer of this script, I recognize the possible room in bias for my points of views. Verbatim tags are restricted to the MW namespace for a reason, and I believe that is to ensure that the Admins take responsibility for all usage of verbatim, no matter who added it where. If a vandal can add it to any random content page and violate TOS, then the admins have responsibility in its usage. One way such responsibility can manifest is the loss of our requested exception privilege. The scripts in MW namespace need to ensure other people cannot abuse verbatim tags to load scripts that violates the Wikia TOS. Thus I believe we need to embed into the script itself a check to ensure it is under a subpage of Main Page, before the rest of it alters the appearance of the page.
As for the Oasis check, I also think it's a better idea to have that, but this issue is one of programming practices and matter a lot less to me. -User:PanSola (talk to the 
) 19:06, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
- I know you want the regexp check to protect you. I think that we can protect you and the wiki the way we usually do (e.g. against vandalism), and that the name of the message and the changed page appearance will alert RC patrol that something strange is going on when it's not a mainpage preview. The benefit to removing this check is that the mainpage drafts can be e.g. in user space, and that the script won't break if we rename the mainpage (it's often renamed to the name of the wiki).
- For the skin check, it would protect a handful of of monobook users from two DOM accesses, while removing that check removes a string comparison for everyone else and makes the code easier to read. --◄mendel► 21:09, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
- The original request did not extend exception to pages in the user space. If individual users want to experiment, they are welcome to create editcopy2, editcopy3, editcopy/PanSola etc. And if desired, we should request explicit permission for the use of the script in user space (the script can easily be modified to check for being a subpage of main page OR in userspace). Renaming of the main page is a major enough event that if it happens the cost of having to modify the regexp is insignificant. I argue the benefit provided by the removal of the check is not worth the potential of losing the exceptional permission should it become abused. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 21:31, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
- The original request did not extend exception to pages in the user space. If individual users want to experiment, they are welcome to create editcopy2, editcopy3, editcopy/PanSola etc. And if desired, we should request explicit permission for the use of the script in user space (the script can easily be modified to check for being a subpage of main page OR in userspace). Renaming of the main page is a major enough event that if it happens the cost of having to modify the regexp is insignificant. I argue the benefit provided by the removal of the check is not worth the potential of losing the exceptional permission should it become abused. -User:PanSola (talk to the