This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I just saw that the uw-copyright series was deleted and redirected to {{cv}}. Did I miss something? I have mixed feelings about having a single issue template here. It is a bit harsh for newcommers in my opinion, they don't know they are doing something wrong. (Sorry if I bring a point that has already been discussed, I couldn't find it in the archives :)) -- lucasbfrtalk13:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two templates, {{Nothanks}} (or {{Nothanks-sd}}) and {{Cv}}, which were listed here before. More than that however, is inappropriate. If someone continues to upload copyrighted material after two warnings (really after one), they cannot be allowed to continue to do so and it cannot be built into the official sort of system created here that they be given five opportunities, with a warning after each one, to commit illegal actions on Wikipedia. I have now redirected {{uw-copyright1}} to {{Nothanks}} instead; it also happens to be much more explanatory and helpful than the new {{uw-copyright1}} which was apparently invented without any reference to already existing templates. —Centrx→talk • 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought a bit about it, I will try to make a 2 levels templates, level 1 being AGF (a mix between the previous lv1 and nothanks) and level 4 being basically {{Cv}}. What do you think? -- lucasbfrtalk09:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ripped of the 2 old templates. Here's the result. I propose to use the first one for level 1 and the second one will be level 4. levels 2 and 3 would redirect to level 4. What do you think? -- lucasbfrtalk17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to squeeze mention of "not linking to copyright violations either" into one of these templates, or to create a new singlelevel one for such purpose? Thanks :) --Quiddity19:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would type a personal message to the user in question, or use the spam templates if the linking is clearly inappropriate, but some people might find such a template useful? -- lucasbfrtalk07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template signature error
Whenever I use any of {{uw-block1}} , {{uw-block2}} or {{uw-block3}} it messes up my signature. It clips everything but the "Email" link. Have a look in my sandbox to see what I mean. What I do is sign after the template, but it is a bit of a problem. Does this happen for anyone else, if not does anyone know what in my sig triggers it so that I can change it? The code for my sig is:
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">[[User:James086|]]</font><sup>[[User talk:James086|<font color="#006400">Talk</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/James086|<font color="#700000">Email</font>]]</sup>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">[[User:James086|]]</font>
<sup>[[User talk:James086|<font color="#006400">Talk</font>]]|
[[Special:Emailuser/James086|<font color="#700000">Email</font>]]</sup>
It causes an "ifelse" statement to become screwed up. Replacing the "|" with either "|" or "{{!}}" will fix the problem. GracenotesT § 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new warning template {{uselanguage}} to tag user talk pages. It has one parameter that is the language code. It will ideally give a warning in the language of the user, but will work with all language codes pointing to the correct WP. It is similar to the family of the contrib-xx1 templates, but can easily be expanded. Andreas (T)00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it is substituted, however, it will result in a mess of superfluous code, although appear fine. I suggest that we clean it up by requiring substitution, or else give an error message. GracenotesT § 04:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it doesn't already exist in some form, I am going to create this new user message template, {{Articlesig}}, in about a week if there are no objections. (The design happens to be lifted from {{noprotection}}.)
Proper signature use
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a common mistake for beginners, and it has since (most likely) been corrected. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should only (and always) use your signature after contributing to talkpages, the Village Pump, or other discussion pages. (For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these, see What is an article?) Thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience!
That's cool. I've been using test1 and adding a sentence after, which is a bit akward and doesn't link to all the appropriate pages (too much typing). This is just a one-shot, yes? Natalie14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after someone's gotten this warning and continues doing it, that would make sense. In answer to your question: Yes, it is certainly one-shot (at first I thought maybe you meant that I only intended to use it once, which wouldn't make sense). However, something like this should still be used for this specific issue the first time it is recognized, but if they continue to disregard this rule, a new level has obviously been reached. Lenoxus" * "01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about a user who never signs their posts and refuses to? I got into this with User:Wrestlinglover420. He never signs his posts on talk pages and basically told me he's not gonna if he doesn't want to. TJ Spyke00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To return to {{Articlesig}}: It is really needed! Has something happened to the proposal, or is there somewhere else you need support so you can create it? Is someone fighting over the words to use? Greswik21:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! I'd just let it slip my mind... so here goes! Link: {{Articlesig}}. Oh, and in answer to TJ Spyke: that template is {{Tilde}}, and at least one bot, HagermanBot, thankfully does this when it can (not that it's perfect, of course, so go ahead if the template is needed). In fact, seeing such a message on another user's talkpage was what reminded me of this! Lenoxus" * "21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! But, what is that {{PAGENAME}} - thing? I had to fix it after using it. Was that just me, could you make a simple example? Greswik15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<unindent>Just going through the backlog. Good idea & good template. I've given it the uw touch, and have now moved it over to {{uw-articlesig}} with a redirect in place. Will now post it up for use. Cheers Khukri14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the warnings threaten things, or mention admin-only tools. A lot of them are boilerplate reminders of various policies, like copyright infringement, signing posts, and using edit summaries. In that respect, templates save the work of thinking of and typing out a whole message yourself, and include links to relevant pages. With the warning series' that escalate to a final warning, most admins like to see that a user has received a level 3 or 4 warning (from any other user) before blocking, because it ensures that the person is aware of the rules and consequences. Natalie15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<includeonly>subst:</includeonly> instead of subst=subst:?
Currently, most user warnings in this project make use of {{{subst|}}} with an optional |subst=subst:}} parameter that simplifies the output of the template when placed on a user talk page. However, this extra parameter is often excluded, and when used, requires some extra typing and doesn't work without an article parameter due to a bug. Perhaps we could use the much easier <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> trick to simplify the output? The includeonly trick uses no additional parameters, is used automatically every time, and also avoids the bug, allowing it to be used even without an article parameter. I think we should switch all the user warnings under this project to use this format, but I'd like to see if people support this first, since it would affect so many templates. PyrospiritFlamesFire02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd love to implement this, there is no way that everyone is going to subst user messages (I know, believe me), and if someone doesn't subst a message in the above format, then it will result is a sticky mess of code that will undoubtedly confuse an vandal, or cause said vandal to laugh at Wikipedia's unintentional bad coding, etc. GracenotesT § 14:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so it won't work if you don't subst, then? In that case, it would remind them to subst the message when they see the messed up code, so it'll serve two purposes! PyrospiritFlamesFire02:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would mean that people check the output of the template after putting it. And that's probably not going to happen this century :D That kind of warning is useful on db-reason and afd, because a badly formed speedy deletion or AfD is enough to have the request bumped, but on a user warning, it will just confuse the user receiving the warning even more. -- lucasbfrtalk06:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argument for welcome and anon
I have gotten into the habit of adding a parameter for welcome and anon (even though it is ignored) so that I can tell what article caught my eye. Perhaps the argument (if present) could be included in the message. For example, "Thank you for your contributions, such as your edit to {{1}}".
OK, I'll bite. I think its a fine idea. If the parameter is optional then there's no harm to those who choose not to use it. So, go for it.--Kubigula(talk)02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:uw-spam1 contains the following erroneous statement: Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. This sentence always bothered me because it's factually incorrect or misleading:
The presence of "nofollow" tags in the article's HTML header is irrelevant. Even without nofollow tags, most spiders are smart enough to avoid following links that lead away from the site being crawled. The point of nofollow tags is more to prevent spiders from indexing specific pages stored on the same web site that it's crawling.
It may not matter that external links "do not alter search engine rankings" because an external link in a Wikipedia article will drive more traffic to that external link! Wikipedia articles come up near the top of many searches, and people who read such an article will see the external links, and some fraction of those will click on those links.
Not exactly, Google and most search engines rank websites according to their popularity. Wikipedia being very popular, an outgoing link from there affected search results. The nofollow tag allows us to say that the link should be ignored. For the second statement, that's why we fight spam on WP ;). -- lucasbfrtalk10:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to the creation of uw-blp1 - uw-blp4 as redirects to the uw-biog series? At least for me, BLP (as the policy abbrev) is much easier to remember. Mr.Z-mantalk¢03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any advice on whether I should leave it in my userspace, or move it to a proper template so others can find and use it more easily? As at the moment you have to type in {{Subst:User:Asics/Reported|sig=~~~~}} in order to get it to work. Is there another one already made? (Knowing my luck there will be, and I will have wasted 10 minutes making it!) Thanks in advance for any advice, Asics talk Editor review!17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fwarn is great, I wish it was "uw-certified." It's documentation needs help though. Not much, just a little. Okay, I'll do it. --Yksin22:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you call it by that name? I didn't mean that as a name, I meant that as the template wasn't "approved" with the new template system. It's an old template. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely repeating your usage. In any case, whether "approved" within the new template system or not, Template:Non-admin fwarn is a very useful template, if used appropriately. I've put together a bit of documentation to help in that direction, that (as a fairly recent vandalism-fighter) I had to learn by trial & error. -- Yksin23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this template used occasionally when on bouts of vandalfighting and I must say that I am not entirely convinced by its usefulness. After all, it basically tells them that they are about to be blocked and there is nothing they can do about it. The Fwarn template states on it You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. However, if someone has submitted them correctly to WP:AIV and they have vandalised after a final warning, no matter how "careful and serious" they are, they are going to be blocked. In my humble opinion, all this template might do is, in some cases, encourage a last scurry of vandalism in the knowledge they are going to be imminently blocked anyway. I invite people to disagree with me and persuade me that this template is useful, but from my experience of witnessing its use I don't entirely feel that way. Will (aka Wimt) 02:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest reason I find it useful is because it indicates to the user that s/he has actually been reported. I frequently come across talk pages that have a large collection of "this is your final warning, next time you will be blocked" all in a row, with no indication that they've ever been reported. If I was engaged in vandalism, I'd just think, "they always say they're gonna do something to me but they never do." [[Template:Non-admin fwarn] lets them know: yes, something has been done. Almost as important, it lets other editors dealing with the same user's vandalism know that a report has been made -- especially if it's the same day with a particularly active vandal -- and adds to the general record of how serious a particular user's vandalism has been. Note that sometimes admins at WP:AIV do not block a reported user -- usually because of time passage since the last prior vandalism -- so I've added to the documentation to hopefully better align its usage with WP:AIV practice. I agree perhaps the language in the template itself could be improved. --Yksin16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna agree with Will in saying that I'm not entirely convinced of its usefulness. Someone who is an obvious vandal will get blocked without needing yet another message on their talk page. As for seeing whether they've been reported or not... I also fail to see the use in that. You can see from their block log (viewable by anyone) whether they've been blocked or not, and whether they've been reported doesn't have much bearing on anything (in my opinion, though I'm a lot more heavy-handed towards vandals than some other people are). If they're a vandal IP, block and move on. If they're a vandal account and they've been warned before, indefinitely block them and move on (regardless of time spent between warnings). EVula// talk // ☯ //17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in summary: you & I see the issues differently, & therefore choose differently. I can live with that. --Yksin17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been seeing this {{fwarn}} template on user pages before I block them, and I'm thinking maybe we should delete it. A lot of people who make WP:AIV reports do so improperly, and we remove the reports instead of blocking. If someone receives one of these messages and then doesn't get blocked, that's worse than just getting {{uw-v4im}} and not getting blocked. And this inevitably happens, we don't block on all reports but getting this warning and then no block definitely sends the wrong message: "go ahead and vandalize with impunity, nobody cares". — coelacan — 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would dislike deleting a template that people find useful, but I have to agree with the above point. Once someone has been reported to AIV, there are only two outcomes - either they get blocked, in which case there's not much point in telling them to reconsider their behavior (and the same message should presumably come from the blocking admin anyway), or they don't get blocked, in which case they either assume the reviewing admin thinks their vandalism was that bad or they learn to guage how much they can get away with without being blocked.--Kubigula(talk)02:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rough consensus above appears to support deletion, so I think consideration by a wider audience at TfD is probably appropriate.--Kubigula(talk)03:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxide makes a good point in the TFD; 3RR reports are sometimes validly contested. A template that lets a person know they've been reported for 3RR can be a good idea, if it points to WP:AN3. Without regard for keeping these generic fwarn templates, would a separate {{uw-3rr-reported}} template be a good idea? — coelacan — 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, the years tend to be common targets for anons who want to add themselves to Wikipedia. While I could use {{uw-test}}, {{uw-vandalism}} or {{uw-joke}}, I feel that these may be a little too generic. Are there any suggestions? --Sigma 702:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall a uw template (albeit before the uw standardization) regarding adding personal commentary & original research? Something different from NPOV and cite tags... Am I overlooking it? /Blaxthos06:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Birthdays
I was wondering whether there is an appropriate warning out there for telling people not to add their own birthdays to date articles. When looking over recent changes, I have noticed that this occurs very regularly. I had been giving them {{uw-test1}} but I feel it doesn't really convey what they are doing and why it is being reverted. I have attempted to make my own template for this purpose at User:Wimt/nn-birthday but I wondered whether any similar templates already existed and, if not, whether anyone else agrees with me that it would be a useful message to give out. Will (aka Wimt) 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seem a little specific. I would suggest using the uw-test templates with the third parameter, which allows you to add specific information. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using test1 for this. If someone does make a specific warning, I would suggest broadening it to adding any nonnotable thing to a date article. People add BS events, deaths, and other crap pretty regularly, as well as adding Jesus to the list of births on December 25. Natalie02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's very true it could easily be broadened to any non-notable date addition. I do take your point TeckWiz that it is quite specific and I could use the third parameter of the test templates, but given how often I have been reverting this recently, I personally think that it may justify its own template. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it's a little too specific. Feel free to use yours though. It looks good. You may also want to move it to the template namespace, but I wouldn't classify it as uw- warning. What about Template:Datewarning ? --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah I have no great wish to make it a uw- warning. Template:Datewarning sounds a good idea to me. I'll move it there when I've reworded it a bit to make it suitable for any date addition. Thanks for your help. Will (aka Wimt) 09:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When to use "blatant vandal" warning (uw-bv)?
I can't figure out how the "blatant vandal" warning is supposed to be used. Based on the "assume good faith" policy, you're not supposed to accuse someone of vandalism unless it's, well, blatant. So, when should the templates uw-vandalism1, 2, etc. be used, and when should uw-bv be used? CalebNoble05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use bv when it's not quite so extreme as to justify an immediate "This is your only warning", but still extreme enough that first and second-level warnings aren't enough. Essentially, I think of it as an immediate third-level warning (remember, level 3 likewise assumes bad faith) that gives a bit more context than just starting immediately with "Please stop". Heimstern Läufer21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree - although I don't really use uw-bv myself, I tend to consider it to be at the same level as uw-vandalism3 when giving further warnings. It is generally used as the first warning given to someone in cases of rather serious and/or fast vandalism. Uw-vandalism4im on the other hand I tend to use on editors who have got a last warning within the previous 24 hours or so to let them know they are still on their absolute last warning. It can also be used as a first and only warning in cases of extremely serious vandalism. Will (aka Wimt) 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've assumed that a garden variety vandal makes an article worse, but it's not completely clear they know the effect of what they're doing. A blatant vandal is one who knows they're making it worse. The former adds cutesy sayings, uncited libelous facts, or changes numbers to plausible values, etc. The latter inserts profanity, character assassinations, non-plausible numbers, etc. —EncMstr22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] The complexity of the vandalism should be taken into account as well. Someone who adds a picture of a penis to a Pokémon page or is modifying templates, for example, is of a totally different type than someone just adding "omg hi" to the day's FA. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Att no longer policy
I don't know templates currently cite ATT instead of Verifiability, but they need to be changed back to Verifiability as ATT is not currently policy, but proposed policy. Miss Mondegreen | Talk08:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed a set last night--I think the big thing is all of the non talk page templates which haven't all been changed back. I'm working on requesting those now. But I have no idea about the rest of these. I did the citing sources set last night but the others? Miss Mondegreen | Talk03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chat1 is currently geared to the situation where someone posts off-topic or inappropriate comments to an article talk page. Talkinarticle is designed for warning those who put talk comments in the actual article space. We could tweak Chat1 to cover the talk in article situation, but (although I generally think we are starting to get too many UWs) I think this is worth a specific one-off warning. I see this situation come up a fair bit, and Artic.gnome's question is at least the third time someone has asked about this template.--Kubigula(talk)14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this template existence (even if personally I wouldn't use it, vandalism is vandalism. But we have {{uw-racism}}, so...), but this template is a copy paste of {{uw-v3}}. It could be replaced by
{{subst:Uw-vandalism3|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1|}}}}}|2=Also note that using [[LGBT]] terms to vandalize promotes hatred and is offensive to many people. Please stop promoting intolerance. }}
(edit conflict - I have pretty much the same reaction as Lucas) I know there are folks who do LGBT RC patrol, and I personally don't begrudge them a specific warning template. However, I don't think we should add this to the main UTM page. We already have {{uw-racism}} and I think you could make an argument for a specific template for every way in which a comment can be offensive - race, sexual preference, religion, national origin etc. Personally, I think the vandalism warnings are adequate for addressing these situations. However, if people want something more specific, I suggest we create one warning, perhaps {{uw-offensive}}, that warns people not to make offensive comments regarding race, sexual preference or religion.--Kubigula(talk)14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that icon is that it isn't protected and it is on Commons. That means that if someone on commons replaces the icon with something else everything here would also be affected. The other thing I don't like which is more minor but still an annoyance is that the icon doesn't seem to match the nuvola or modern look now being used in the uw-template series. -- Hdt83Chat23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick change back on one part which was putting the image size back to 40px, not to be a pain in the arse and will happily put them back in a bit if needs be. If these warnings are used on a wide screen, due to the coding the image will infact overlap the table. Also the most serious is block3 the permanent block, which has a smaller icon overall. If you look here they are all at the same size (overall not just the X). I tried to put block3 at the same size but runs into this overlap problem. Is the bigger image size important, this is the biggest image we have in the uw series, I'm certainly for the icons but is there a point when they are bigger than the message you are trying to convey? Just my thoughts and I will change back if you lot think so. Ta Khukri07:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing V1 and V2
I have to say that I'm not quite happy with {{uw-v1}} (and it's partly my own fault). The template tries to address situations where someone has vandalized repeatedly or just once, and the resulting language doesn't flow very well. I mean the "one or more of your edits, such as the one you made to..." part. My thought is to steal the language from V2 and change V1 to the following (options included):
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute to our encyclopedia, but please do not make unhelpful and unconstructive edits, as you did to Article. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia and feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Thank you.
Of course, this means that V2 would also need to be changed so that the two warnings are not redundantly similar. My proposed language for V2 is as follows:
Adding unhelpful and non-constructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Article, is considered vandalism and is reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
This would be a pretty big change, so I ask for comments, objections or suggestions. For all I know, it could just be me that doesn't particularly like the current V1.--Kubigula(talk)02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As level 1 warnings assume good faith, we should emphasize "considered unhelpful and unconstructive" in V1. If we are assuming good faith, we must assume they had good intentions but are unaware of policy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. How about, "..., but please do not make edits that are considered unhelpful or unconstructive, as you did to Article."? --Kubigula(talk)03:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does one propose a new template?
Per discussion here, there seems to be a mismatch between the tone of the {{Uw-longterm}} tag and the purpose WP:WARN holds it out for (viz., reprimanding a user for a "Long term pattern of abuse"). A user had racked up a clear record of abusing the minor edit tag, but this abuse didn't amount to vandalism. Because we have a tag for such a "Long term pattern of abuse" I used this, and received complaints that this was needlessly inflammatory, because the template's language seems aimed at vandals, not serial abusers. In my view, "long term pattern of abuse" and "long term pattern of vandalism" are plainly distinct, and merit different templates. I propose there should either be separate tags for a long-term pattern of abuse (which is what we have here) and a long-term pattern of vandalism, or in the alternative, the language of the {{Uw-longterm}} template should be changed to be more appropriate to the behavior WP:WARN holds it out as a sanction for.Simon Dodd15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem is in the semantics of the word "abuse". It doesn't mean what you think it means. This template is fine for the purpose it's meant for, warning users who behave abusively. The guy you were using it on wasn't "abusing" anything. He was maybe misusing it (arguably, in some instances, not even in most). "Abusive" behaviour is harmful behaviour that is committed in a reckless or intentional way. Fut.Perf.☼20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding Fut.Perf's comment, given discussion at WP:AN, I have made changes to WP:WARN and surrounding materials to fix the problems that led to this situation. To begin with, because abuse and vandalism are clearly separate concepts and because {{Uw-longterm}} clearly addresses the latter, I have relabeled it here at WP:WARN to reflect its actual purpose. I have also created a new template, {{Uw-longtermabuse}}, to fill the gap left by relabelling {{Uw-longterm}}. Lastly, I have proposed a new policy, Wikipedia:Abuse that I hope will be used to arrive at a community consensus of what "abuse" means as WP:WARN and other policies comprehend that term.Simon Dodd13:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in further demonstration of Fut.Perf's bad faith in so doing, he made no note of that here or on my talk page. A true class act.Simon Dodd15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising warnings
A new section of WP:BLOCK, added in this edit, permits blocks afterr warnings of accouts that "exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service". It seems to me that a proper set of warning tempaltes should be crezted for this, and included in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Does anyone object or have any suggestions? DES(talk)15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh..{{uw-advert1}} and the rest of the series exist.. Never mind. Yes, they should be created. Also, since it's no in the blocking policy, we should make uw-adblock (ablock already exists). --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This word is misused here. It is very difficult to actually abuse a person over the internet. See here
Instead of "long-term pattern of abuse", which might be offensive to people who have suffered actual abuse, we should say "long-term pattern of severe disruption", or some other different wording.
I can certainly agree with that, although it looks like it's going to be a moot point - someone's nominated the template for deletion.Simon Dodd19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption would be better wording if such a template were actually helpful. However, Armedblowfish, despite sharing your concern for the victims of abuse, reading a dictionary entry for "abuse" suggests that your restriction of the use of a word which has long had a wide range of meanings to the social context of the extremely serious things you refer to is itself an abuse of the English language. The things you describe are terrible, but that does not mean they should take over a perfectly good English word. JPD (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reverted. I don't believe that there is any consensus to return to the older icons at the moment. By all means start a discussion but don't just make changes based upon your personal preference. Will (aka Wimt) 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why the uw-vandalism templates are formatted as HTML tables? The formatting causes the signature to move down a line or two, which makes things rather awkward. For example:
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Article, you may be blocked from editing. Hersfold(talk/work)02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It looks as though the template has been fixed anyway, and that discussion makes it sound as though I wasn't the only one having this problem. Thanks. Hersfold(talk/work)02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry everyone, for some reason this page was knocked off my watch list, so I haven't kept an eye on any template questions or problems from here recently. Anyway it's back on my watch list so any grumbles, moans about why X, or Y isn't working I'll be able to deftly ignore them ;) Khukri07:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the Uw-4 templates, I think we should change last warning to final warning, and use this image: , instead of this one: . - Super4818:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the one that says "Stop" is good. Also, if someone's vandalising in another language, they'll recognize a hand, not an English word. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 18:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with the stop sign, I think, is that it's American. Do they have ones that look like that in Britain? GracenotesT § 15:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do have stop signs that look like that in the UK actually, although they aren't as widely used as the give way sign. Nevertheless, I still prefer the hand myself as I think it looks nicer. Will (aka Wimt) 15:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have them in France, but that's a side issue. The hand template, be it in spangly nuvola or plain, has become a sort of norm throughout Wikipedia, not just amongst warning templates but in all sorts of places. I think tradition has to pay a part in any decision to change, and I'm not up for change for changes sake, and would need a more concrete rationale at the moment. Cheers Khukri09:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Escalation of uw-error and uw-test series (and others)
The uw-error and uw-test series should escalate to uw-vandalism4, but the template documentation links to uw-4 instead. This redirects to the correct template, but still I think it lacks in clarity.
Looking at the code, it is supposed to do so (and I think it did at some point). There must be a glitch somewhere... -- lucasbfrtalk14:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into a bit more, anyway. And do we want "uw-vandalism" or "uw-v" as the default escalation series? Hm... it seems like lucas took basically the same approach that I did. GracenotesT § 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you've lost me? Not about saving space, when we started it was about when you get to level 4 with these types of warnings, it was about stating that these type of edits in the are end considered vandalism pure n simple. Khukri07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Gracenotes meant to ask was whether we should link to Template:uw-v4 or Template:uw-vandalism4 (or others in the uw-vandalism series); the former is a shortcut for the latter. I first thought uw-v was OK, but since space is not an issue really, and for clarity, shall we link to uw-vandalism? Oliphaunt09:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ha, yea I agree I think linking to the actual template is preferable than linking to the redirect. Sorry didn't understand. Cheers Khukri09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Uw-bite
I'm not sure if this template would work with the project. It's telling people not to bite newcomers. That presumably means it's being giving to experienced users. Experienced users shouldn't be templated. So this template probably shouldn't exist. It's short enough to be typed anyway. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested speedy deletion for that template, despite the fact that DTTR is only an essay and not a policy/guidline. Also, I have seen shorter single use templates (uw-editsummary is one). Funpika01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are plenty of intermediate users who are somewhere between rookie newcomers and experienced and established editors, who have not yet read all the policies, such as not biting the newcomers or whatever, but have still posted plenty of wiki-edits. Then there are the vast numbers of anonymous unregistered IP users, which might be shared at a school or library, and who have a much higher probability of going astray from the rules. Discretion should always be used in applying official warning templates, which are simply meant to make a slightly more visual, official-looking impact. Experienced editors should be counselled on the basis of reasoning, with friendly helpful links to the rule(s) in question, and sans-template; while newbies and anonymous shared IP editors may actually respond a bit more appropriately to an official-looking template warning. A simple friendly note from some other wiki-editor may not seem very "official" to a newcomer, and therefore might be judged as not particularly valid. A rule of thumb might be: if the offending editor knows what a warning template is and how to make one, then he/she should not be warned with a template. Many of our newcomers are highly experienced in posting on forums, myspace, facebook, and blog pages; which are not always noted for civility. Sometimes takes a little while for them to adapt to the unfamiliar territory of wiki-civility and consensus, and it may take some time and counselling to get them to come around. "Our job" is to help them. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to agree with T-dot - just because the template is there doesn't mean it's going to be used on regulars. The template could be issued to a relative newbie, an IP user that does come fairly frequently but hasn't made an account, or possibly a regular who has been treating newcomers particularly nastily lately. Just because they're a regular does not mean that they're perfect - that's why WP:DTTR is an essay and not a guideline. If someone is willing to go to WP:UTM and find the template they should use to warn a member not to bite newbies, then they probably can be trusted to know when is a good time to use a template. You're welcome to put it up for deletion, of course, but I really don't think there's any reason to delete the template, unless it's clear that it is being abused. Hersfold(talk/work)01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recreated it? Interesting. I was about to do so after reading the comment and I noticed it was there. :P Funpika20:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I will agree in principle that WP:DTTR applies, I feel that each situation should be determined on its own merits. As an example, when I see an editor revert vandalism/tests/etc. without issuing a warning, I almost always leave the reverter a {{Uw-warn}} and issue the appropriate warning to the revertee myself. Too often I have seen a vandal get away with a dozen extra edits before being blocked because people were too lazy to issue warnings when they reverted. However, as always, YMMV. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion before inclusion
Should it be mandatory to suggest a template on this talk page before making it/adding it to the list? We don't templates whose syntax is messed up, or ones that don't serve a good purpose. I don't mean making it bureaucratic with an approval group or anything, just having 1 or 2 users' imput on the suggestion before making it. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more with you. I also don't want it to turn into a bureaucracy but I've lost track of the amount of times I've had to ask editors (nicely) not to do partial edits to some of the system. There's enough people now with this page in their watchlist that even if someone has to wait 24 hours, it's better than putting new templates straight into circulation. I see this morning that User:AAA! has put all of the redirect templates up for db, and has created a single issue. I'm not entirely sure about this and am going to put a hangon on all the templates will discuss below. Khukri07:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect templates
As I said above User:AAA! has put all of the uw-redirect series up for speedy and has created {{uw-redirect}}. Overall I'm not worried except the new template doesn't have any leeway for AGF, and the first two levels of the existing system can be used for people who put redirects into place but might not be pure out n out vandalism but could just be a balls up. Anyone think otherwise or is a single suffice? Khukri07:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created the above template. Improvements to it from those with more experience of managing user warning templates are most welcome. Additional templates for more severe warnings would be even better. Thanks. — Hex(❝?!❞)01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could certainly be incorporated into the uw-chat series, but as one off templates go the idea is sound. I would maybe suggest moving it to {{uw-notsocial}}, as per all uw warnings, change the icon over to the standard info. Then change the first argument to become the name of the offending article or talk page, and at the thank you add the following;
{{pp-semi-template|small=yes}} -We'll get it protected afterwards
{{Singlenotice}}</noinclude>
It's up to everyone else, look to see though if it can be incorporated into chat, and that will give you your incremental part you wish. Cheers Khukri09:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a great idea, and have recently had several situations where I could have used the template myself. Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but it looks like your template doesn't point to the first link you list above. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)(Talk)21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both links reflect the same underlying policy. I could only work in the one, if you or someone else has a good way to include both feel free to edit it. Anomie23:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My personal suggestion is to make it a tad less grave. Linking to copyrighted material is not as bad as inserting it. Don't want to make a WP:ADIEU situation either... GracenotesT § 05:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the one line I copied from uw-copyright instead of Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking, but I can't seem to find a way to reword it to be less grave without sounding too lenient. Do you have any suggestions? Or maybe it should be a series, to cover both good-faith edits and persistent violators? Anomie14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've created series versions so good faith can be assumed (or not assumed) as necessary: 1, 2, 3. Are these preferable to the one-size-fits-all version? Anomie22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a small change in the wikilinking (feel free to revert if you don't like it). Otherwise, I would say it's good to go. Nice job.--Kubigula(talk)21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to Wikipedia space as a template. The shortest useful name would be best; I'm thinking either {{uw-copylink}} or {{Template:Uw-copyright-link}}. It should then be added to the WP:UTM page, probably under the existing copyright warning, using the same formatting as the others. Then, I think it should also be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview. I believe that's it - I invite others to jump in if I am missing something. Let me know if you need help with these.--Kubigula(talk)04:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed WP:UTM itself ;) don't worry it's done. On that note I've spent a little while making sure that temaplates are listed in all the correct places. I think I'll add a section to the FAQ this evening about where templates should go. Khukri14:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked around but I was wondering if there is a template to put on the talk page of users who try to contact celebrities through their respective Wikipages (e.g. "I love you so much *****! Email me at ***")? In the interim should I use social networking or chatting tags? If one doesn't exist, this may be a useful template to make. - AKeen15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Templated messages are used for the more common types of issues, and are not a substitute for a good ol personal message and I think something like this would warrant the personal touch. I wouldn't necessarily think about creating a template for cyberstalking. Khukri15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have created, and added to the page, two new templates.
{{Speedy-Warn}} is used to notify/warn soemone that a speedy delete tag that s/he has placed has been considered inappropriate and has been removed.
{{SD warn-needed}} is used to remind editors that when placing a speedy delete tag it is a good idea to notify the creator of the artticle involved that it has been tagged.
Both probably need to be harmonized with the WP:UW look and feel and naming convention. As a side note, we might want to organize the single templates an other way, the table is growing a lot. -- lucasbfrtalk15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lucas but would you mind if I remved them until they get the UW treatment? you might want to also look here here we've got ideas to standardise all the sp templates as well as some other areas. I'll wait a little while, but I'll most probably take them down this evening till they become standardised. Cheers Khukri16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are not quite "user-warning" templates, there are others listed that are not either, mostly in the "Other" section. I'm not sure these really should use the UW look or naming convention, although they can if you wish. Perhaps they should be moved down into the "Other" section perhaps in "deletion notifiactions"? But I am not claiming to WP:OWN these, so if you want to re-arrange them to have the uw-look and name, you surely may. DES(talk)16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the "-n"
Most of these templates used to have a "-n" appended, which made it easy to see which article the user was warned for. Any chance of getting a list of these or adding this to every current "UW" template? --Liface15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't needed anymore, every template does this by default. If you look at the bottom of any template it tells you how to use the templates i.e. {{uw-v1}}. Cheers Khukri15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for specific warning template
Is there a warning for users who use warnings maliciously? I warned a user who had made some *ahem* non-constructive edits, and he replied to me with a blatant vandal template. --LuigiManiac14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but you should probably remove the warning, and either re warn him for vandalism or type a personalized message :) -- lucasbfrtalk14:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible contradiction between this template and the policy page
I think there's a contradiction between this template, which implies that you're entitled to three reverts per day, and the policy page, which states that it's not an entitlement. I've drawn attention to it here. ElinorD17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the template to correct the wording. Note that this doesn't leave much of the template left over. It might probably be wise to just block everyone who uses this template. (The previous version could get people blocked on the novel theory of misrepresenting guidelines. This in addition to what would happen if you apply this version: You could be blocked for ruleslawyering, gaming the rules, and being a WP:DICK in general, not to mention you might draw attention to any edit warring you've been doing yourself. Finally, you could get reprimanded as per WP:KETTLE.) —Kim Bruning21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the "Please read 3RR", which can be read as being a little confrontational, and suggested the talk page to work out troubles. It's quite a big change for a small template, so please check I've done it all right. --h2g2bob22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template is currently inferior to {{3RR}} in my opinion, because it just seems to be a generic "don't edit-war" template and doesn't actually explain what the 3RR policy is or even mention it. One use of user warnings is to inform users of policy, and this template fails in that regard at the moment. I see that the link has been removed in the past, though, so I'm posting this here to request more thought about the matter. --ais523 12:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy having this template classed as a "user warning" template. I created it as a way to give feedback to users who made unsuccessful reports to AIV in good faith without knowing for technical reasons that they would not be actionable. It was there as a partner to {{AIV-thanks}} (which I haven't created yet!) to feedback successful AIV reports.
I think its good to bring it into line with the user template rationalisation programme but I don't think it really sits well alongside templates like {{uw-v1}}. Could it be reclassified somehow? AndrewRT(Talk) 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. The "uw-" prefix applies to user messages in general, although I can see why you're hung up about it. This template is not a warning template, nor was it ever consciously classified as such. It's actually a notice. Believe me, {{uw-thankyou}} is in no way a warning, but under harmonization and such, it was created to begin with "uw-". I hope that this isn't rather inconvenient. GracenotesT § 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-autobiography
Shouldn't this template raise the possibility of speedy deletion? Right now it looks like it can only be used for autobiographical articles that might be sent to WP:AFD. --Metropolitan9016:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you allow this template to reference specific articles? I checked the source, and there doesn't seem to be any inidcation that this is the case. --Sigma 719:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried the template {{subst:uw-autobiography|Article}}, pasting in the name of the article, and when the template was substituted on the user's talk page, the name of the article didn't appear. I don't grok templates well enough to fix this.--Kathy A.22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-c&pmove
The documentation for this template doesn't specify the {{{to}}} parameter, which is unique to this template and not used for (most?) other user warning templates. --Russ(talk)14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-delete1
Only for newer users?
A lot of the text on this template would only be appropriate for newer users. If this was given to established editors that made an honest mistake, it would be insulting to tell them to read the welcome page and use the sandbox for test edits. Just my 2 cents. :: ZJH(TCE)12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why all of the level 1 templates have been written as AGF warnings, and to inform editors that the edit they have just done is wrong. For an established editor who should know better than remove large tracts of text without providing an edit summary one would normally start with a level 2 warning. The language of level 2 is usually faith neutral tending towards reproach so that if a mistake has been made we are still not throwing around blatant accusations. cheers Khukri12:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Passive voice is OK, but....
Don't get me wrong, I *like* the passive voice. When used correctly, it's a wonderful thing. However, the current Uw-delete1 template says (in part):
Please ... do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary.
That last clause can be read two ways:
You should provide the edit summary. Or,
The edit summary field should be filled in automatically by the server; you should see text there when you edit.
Inexperienced users won't know which way to interpret it.
May I recommend instead:
Please ... do not remove content from Wikipedia without typing a good reason in the edit summary field.
No probs at all. You could do the same aim by a smaller change .....Wikipedia without a good reason, whichyou should specify.... But it's splitting hairs, on you go. Khukri07:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is very offensive
I am a victim of this template. It is very offensive to get a standardised warning from a thoughtless editor who did not take the trouble to review whether the edit was good or bad for Wikipedia, or to read the associated talk page. I am thinking of quitting as a result of this brutal treatment. I do not think you should allow editors to use templates like this as a shortcut way of making unfair allegations. Varsdra19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you removed content from an article accidentally, the template should not offend you. If you removed it intentionally, then either you should have stated a reason, or been warned with a stronger content blanking/vandalism template. It takes a bit of a thick skin to edit here, since your edits will always be under the scrutiny of others. As far as "brutal treatment", c'mon. If you consider a vanilla warning like this one brutal, I fear for you. -- Elaich17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this is a level 1 block, is it wise to link to BJAODN in this template? I'm seeing a WP:BEANS situation here by implicitly encouraging editors to just make joke edits elsewhere. BJAODN can be entertaining, but it's more of a comic relief for seasoned editors rather than a place we direct newbies to. Tijuana Brass06:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It seems to say, "Please don't joke on our encyclopaedia, we don't like it. But hey! Here's where we'll glamorise all the jokes you and others may insert!" -- LukeSurl15:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and made the change. I thought it was more appropriate to link to the Wikipedia page than to the external link, as using an external link might be taken as a disingenuous attempt to kick someone out of Wikipedia.--Kubigula(talk)04:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked and it mentioned Uncyc, not BJAODN. If it is not going to continue to point to Uncyc, I suggest that it shouldn't point to anything there, for reasons already covered above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea; link to the topic here rather than to the other site. While I think it would result in a small spike of joke-vandalism at the Uncyclopedia article, I'm sure it has plenty of watchers since it's is already and obvious target anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the Uncyclopedia part. It's not worth adding, especially since they won't tolerate silly/nonsense edits (I'm a member there, and most joke edits aren't really that funny). All we want is for them to stop making joke edits, and the sandbox seems adequate. I've removed it, and will leave it like it is. I don't think we need a "You might also want to check out..." sentence anyway. --AAA!(AAAA)07:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the hope was that if they like humor, they could turn out to be legitimate editors at Uncyclopedia. However, I see your point that the result could be that we just end up funneling WP vandals to Uncyclopedia. So, I have no objection to deleting the reference.--Kubigula(talk)13:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-own1
When to use this template
Only use this template if the user who is violating WP:OWN is new to Wikipedia. Usually these type of violations are from expierienced users. If the user is expierienced, use Uw-own2 or Uw-own3 (depending on how severe or hostile the problem is) and try to resolve the problem on the article's talk page. If the editor persists and behaves disruptively (e.g. revert war, personal attacks, uncivility, etc.), use other templates. Squirepants10116:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the use of templates on experienced users is regarded by many as uncivil and that a better way of dealing with the issue would be to type a polite message on the user's talkpage rather than hit them with a template. The user is undoubtedly already aware of WP:OWN... WJBscribe17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
teehee. But seriously. I'm getting a little tired of rude responses on my talk page when I use this one on someone else's. It's normally something to the effect of "It's too much trouble." Gimme a break. How hard is it to type subst: before the name of the template you've picked?! MKoltnow05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone finds it too much trouble to type 6 characters then I would question the fact that they are issuing templates in the first place. If they don't understand why templates should be subst'd for the good of Wikipedia, then there's a fair chance they don't understand the template they are issuing. Yes editors forget and I wouldn't ever issue this template unless it was for continued non subst'ing, but an editor who says he can't be bothered doesn't entirely have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Khukri09:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I try to add a friendly personal note such as "Keep up the good work vandal fighting" or somesuch, and direct them to WP:TT since a huge number of people don't use the new uw-style templates either, but it doesn't seem to matter what I say, I get no reaction or a hostile reaction more often than should be expected. MKoltnow14:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no matter how much good faith is put into the templates, some editors will always take it personally. And with the fact that there are no repercussions for not subst'ing can makes it a very difficult area to police as you well know. All I can say is when you get a 'narky' one send another message saying you did what you did for the good of wikipedia, explain in layman's terms the effect it has on the servers blah blah blah, and if they're still tetchy after that well at least you can say you tried and meant it with the best intentions. I dunno how you add your extra text or if you know, but there is a second parser built in to this and almost all of the uw- series of warning that allows you to modify the Thank you i.e.
{{subst:uw-subt|Article|This message is just to give you a gentle reminder, please do not take it personally and keep up the good work.}}
{{subst:uw-test1|subst=subst:}} seems to be broken at the moment (try it in the sandbox): the first sentence ends up reading 'Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page [[:the page [[:{{{1}}}]] on]] on Wikipedia.'. I think that this is a problem with optional subst, rather than with the template itself, though. --ais523 09:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Template needs an edit
Because this template is so heavily used, I wanted to discuss this one rather that just doing it. I think this template should end with ...sandbox instead of articles or other pages, even if your ultimate intention is to undo your test edits."
Rationale: Some editors (mistakenly in my view) believe that any time a test edit is self-reverted then uw-test2 should be used (because it mentions self-reversion) even if the experimenter has no level-1 warnings. I think this is misguided, as self-reverting a test is a lesser "sin" that testing and not self-reverting. The misguidance is coming from the lack of self-reversion being mentioned here at uw-test1. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the talk page has a hat full of warnings, then just go straight in with something like;
{{subst:uw-v3|Article|Even though you have reverted your intial vandalism, these edits are still considered disruptive and blocks we be issued.}}
If there are no warnings on the page but you can see aload of self reverts in the history, assume good faith and give them the selfrevert warning, after that just go on with the uw-v series. The vandalism templates are there to be used for most situations. If you slap one of these on an editors talk page, no matter the semantics of the situation or whether he reverted it or not, they'll understand what the warning is for. Khukri17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback; I'm leery of jumping to level-3 warnings, even when the talk page is covered with warnings — AGF and all that. Nevertheless, I will surely consider what you have said in the future. --Aarktica17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding like a dick, I think people assume good faith too much. If someone's collecting a boatload of level 1 and 2 warnings, just jump right in with a 3 or 4, and/or report them to WP:AIV. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and that doesn't include having infinite patience with idiots; if they're just here to screw around and make our jobs harder, get rid of 'em. A good example: I just indefinitely blocked a user whose previous edits [2][3] had only garnered him a weak {{uw-vandalism2}}. Vandals are vandals; the less we coddle them, the better off we'll be. EVula// talk // ☯ //17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken; however, I believe that this is an effort in bending over backwards per WP:BITE. That said, I see how this can become dispiriting after a while, leading otherwise excellent contributors to leave the project in disgust.
As for the example you mentioned, I would be hard pressed to play devil's advocate. There may be an equilibrium point being short-tempered and overly long-suffering; but I am unsure about the location of the sweet spot, assuming one exists... --Aarktica18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a "let's assume good faith"-template, I think this one is to harsh!
This because it assumes the user wanted the result to be what it was. To me, an assume good faith here should have been more in the direction of "as your test did not come out so well, it has now been reverted or removed"... or something (please note this two last words.). The point with using a level1 warning is one still has hope for the editor, right? But I am not a native english speaker, so I don't know how english speakers would take this. Anyone seeing my point, or is it just me? Greswik19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this template, in the overgenerality of its wording, conflicts with the long-standng WP:REFACTOR. These templates should only be used when the refactoring (or deletion of course) appears to be a) in bad faith, or b) is nitpicky spelling-fascism types of edits. They should not be used for a) sensitive refactoring (such as correcting broken wikilinks in others' posts, fixing indentation levels, adding in missing attribution, etc.), b) archival of talk messages, or c) accuracy refactoring of poll results and other talk page items of a factual, not personal, nature. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ01:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I have posted this same message on the V2 talk page)
Let me first say that I think the folks who have been working on revamping the templates are doing a fantastic job. I know the project isn't done, and there is already much more consistency and clarity in the templates. That being said, I would also like to nitpick. Specifically, I think the current text of vandalism2 is too repetitive of vandalism1 - it says the same thing, though less. I appreciate the theory relating to assumptions of good faith, but, in practice, I don't see much point in giving a vandalism2 if you've already given a V1. My thought is to remove the, "as they could be considered to be vandalism" from V1. This does weaken it a bit, but it also makes it more consistent with the assumption of good faith.--Kubigula(talk)18:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no responses, I implemented the suggestion above. I see in the history that the reference to vandalism was added because it was thought the vandalism template should contain a reference to "vandalism", unlike the test1. However, this template is already much stronger than test1, as it labels the edits as unhelpful or unconstructive. This is very similar to the old VW template. Removing the reference to vandalism goes further to the assumption of good faith, and, IMO, makes vandalism2 a more effective upgrade template. As it was, I saw no real reason to use V2.--Kubigula(talk)22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately with some 400 odd warning templates, and the fact that these are a new system your message was missed. This inclusion of the word vandlism was discussed sometime ago at WT:UTM the focal point of all these templates. I will leave your edits for now, but I would like you to bring this up over there and gain some concensus on this issue. Regards Khukri - 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought about posting at UTM, but I thought it was more appopriate to do it here as it was a specific issue with a specific template. I will take it there. Thank you for your feedback.--Kubigula(talk)22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a discussion at WP:V, I'm considering to nominate this template for deletion. There is no such thing as a "good-faithed" vandalism, and the level 1 warnings assume good faith. In addition, I find that most users seem to treat a single {{uw-vandalism2}} as a level 1 warning - which lets the vandals know that Wikipedian users are too friendly to risk escalating to {{uw-vandalism3}}. Removing this template forces the first warning to be a level 2, and the second warning to be a level 3 (or level 4 if there's also a decision to discourage uw-vandalism3), which will speed up the escalation process for removing vandals. --Sigma 722:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When we set out these templates, we decided that it was possible to assume good faith with vandals. The long and short of it comes to down to a first time vandal that might not truly understand the consequences of mis-editing Wikipedia and the type of vandalism. By issuing this template as a gentle reproach for first time vandals might turn a potential future vandal away. Going in straight away with an escalated warning there's very little chance of them turning round. The problem is I believe on the RCP end of the system, due to the fact we see so much vandalism. It is very difficult to AGF with anyone vandalising for the first time amongst the blur of all the other vandalism.
The system is geared up for a 4 level system for blockable warnings and 3 levels for non blockable, with single notices and warnings also available. If we start chopping out bits and pieces here and there, then we may as well scrap the whole system, and return to the old fragmented system.
If editors are issuing first time vandals with level 2 or 3 warnings then I would be more inclined to believe there is a problem with the system. The fact is that editors are issuing the warnings with a view to only quashing the immediate vandalism. If a slightly gentler approach for a first time vandal, might bring a new editor to the project is always a net positive. This might be seen as cloud cuckoo land but I personally have seen editors turned round and then contribute to the community having received a warning and then an explanation of why what they did was wrong. To me this sums up the very tenants of assume good faith, for the sake of issuing one more template and by trying to make new editors realise that they have erred might in the long run help the community. Cheers Khukri23:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Khukri. A significant number of people stop vandalizing after they get the first warning, so I think the first warning should be relatively gentle (unless the vandalism was truly offensive). Also, a change of this signficance should probably be proposed at WT:UTM.--Kubigula(talk)00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was really discussed at WP:V? Perhaps you mean WP:VAN? Either way, I always felt that having a first-level vandalism warning dovetailed nicely with both WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Speaking from personal experience, I have observed many occasions where individuals have stopped after just the first warning, and it is not like having only three levels of vandalism is going to speed up our ability to have vandals blocked (especially since WP:AIV no longer requires a full set of warnings). --Kralizec! (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think all warnings need to be used in a 1, 2, 3, 4 sequence. I often do 1, 3, 4 or 2, 3, 4 depending on what the vandalism is and who the user is. I mean that putting {{uw-v1}} on a previous offender is pointless. The "grid" is not a tool made to escalation 1 step at a time : lv1 assumes good faith, lv2 is factual, lv3 assumes bad faith. -- lucasbfrtalk14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this discussion is here, until I move them all over to WP:UTM this evening, I'll respond. I couldn't agree more. I would sequence normally 1, 3, 4 for a first time editor and 2, 3, 4, for an infrequent vandal or returning vandal, and for a vandalism hotbed, either uw-bv or v4-im. I think anyone who follows these rules will always achieve a block. I also always explain when I report to AIV the sequence followed, and as far as I know have never had a block turned down. Cheers Khukri16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No response, despite it being brought up so I'm bringing it up again. All vandalism-related user talk template messages need the "diff" parameter added. ∞ΣɛÞ²(τ|c)14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea and I think it'll need to be somehow ORd in with the first parser argument. So instead of as you did to Article should look like as you did [[diff link|here]]. If one of you guys can give me a rough find replace look for to Article to if diff= ............. I can tweak the rest of the wordings by hand within AWB. Cheers Khukri07:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to be able to mention more than one article. I don't think it is possible with the current version. --MarSch10:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Level 1 is for assume good faith which means either it's a first time vandal and you want to tell them about how to conduct themselves on wikipedia, or it's for an edit you are not sure is vandalism. If someone had carried out multiple vandalism, then you'd go staright in with a level 3 or 4. You can also add the additional articles as extra text, such as
{{subst:uw-v3|article1|This is also applicable to your edits on [[article2]], [[article3]] & [[article4]].}} ~~~~
... edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed.
I've never liked this wording. The passive voice combined with the use of "considered" seems like an attempt to avoid responsibility by the template user. I think the wording ...edits appear to be unhelpful or unconstructive... would be a more accurate description of the process. It's also more diplomatic in the event of a mistake. Any thoughts on this matter? — Feezo(Talk)23:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the wording is a bit awkward, but I'm not sure I agree with the proposed solution. If there is any possibility that the edits were a legitimate attempt to edit the article, I think the appropriate warning should be {{uw-test1}}. I use V1 for the times when there is no doubt the edit was unhelpful or unconstructive (the "Bob likes to lick balls!!!!" variety). We can give them the benefit of the doubt that they were just experimenting rather than vandalizing, but it's hard not to say that the edit was, at best, unhelpful or unconstructive. By the way, I made my own pitch for rewriting V1 and V2 at WT:UTM#Changing V1 and V2, though without drawing much attention.--Kubigula(talk)03:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
has/have
MessedRocker recently reverted one of my changes as incorrect grammar: [5]. "One or more of your edits have [e.g., not has] been removed". I'm fairly sure this is bad grammar, but it might be a UK/US thing. Try on this sentence: One or more is enough vs. One or more are enough. I'm 98% sure the first is gramatically correct as one is the primary subject. The Evil Spartan16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I was curious as to this issue, so I did some research. Every source I looked at stated that when using "or", the verb should agree with the subject closest to the verb.[6][7][8] So, in this case, have is apparently correct.--Kubigula(talk)17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ich. Well it still sounds wrong to me. Maybe we could reword it to not sounds to awkward. Perhaps more or one of your recent edits has :P . The Evil Spartan17:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "more" in this way is a shortcut for "more than one". The sentences in question actually represent the one case where "more than one" calls for a plural verb.[9] However, I agree that it sounds unusual and is somewhat inconsistent, as "more than one editor" and "more than one of our editors" are both noun phrases that refer to X editors, where X > 1. Croctotheface08:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first say that I think the folks who have been working on revamping the templates are doing a fantastic job. I know the project isn't done, and there is already much more consistency and clarity in the templates. That being said, I would also like to nitpick. Specifically, I think the current text of vandalism2 is too repetitive of vandalism1 - it says the same thing, though less. I appreciate the theory relating to assumptions of good faith, but, in practice, I don't see much point in giving a vandalism2 if you've already given a V1. My thought is to remove the, "as they could be considered to be vandalism" from V1. This does weaken it a bit, but it also makes it more consistent with the assumption of good faith. I will repeat this suggestion on the V1 talk page.--Kubigula(talk)18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the vandal2 template should be strengthened and made a bit more explicit as a serious reminder, without being too accusatory in tone. I suggest the following be added:
"In the future, please remember that Wikipedia is a serious, online encyclopedia consulted daily by thousands of people around the world, who are seeking reliable, factual information."
-submitted by JGHowes11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone has these templates on their watchlists. May I suggest you repost your idea here WT:UTM which is the focal talk page for all user page templates. Regards Khukri17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing {{editprotected}} for now -- I'd prefer to see a stronger consensus in favor of the change. Doesn't seem like a bad topic for discussion, so feel free to continue to pursue this change. Add the template back after some more discussion, I guess. :) – Luna Santin (talk)22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the making a change, but have another recommendation. In my experience, only experienced editors can tell the difference between {{uw-vandalism1}} and {{uw-vandalism2}}, as the same icon is used for levels 1 and 2. Changing this icon will let both other editors (as well as the recipient of the warnings) to know the difference between the two warnings. --Sigma 703:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a template for misleading edit summaries? I see one for using "minor" whien it's not, but not for people who post summaries that are misleading - I think we should ahe one if we don't. Tvoz|talk21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's not what I'm looking for though. I'm talking about edit summaries that claim the edits are about one thing but are hiding other edits of a major kind - misleading because they say things like "copy edit" when they mean "reverting to what I wanted in the first place" or they just don't mention a major edit while summarizing some other edit. This happens a lot on busy articles, where other editors may well miss several edits and when looking at history see edit summaries only and miss significant changes that were hidden. Tvoz|talk21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see this sometimes too, often you can tell because they write things like, "changing a word round to make it more clear", when in fact they are adding vandalism. See African elephant for some examples (all the Colbert stuff). I think though that, a template is not needed, you can use uw-vand. --Jackaranga04:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of specific templates?
What's the deal with the removal of more specific templates in favour of lumping them together in generic ones? The point of warning messages is to tell the user exactly what they did wrong, not allude to it vaguely. For example, the template drmmt series seems to have been removed (for removing maintenance templates like or, fact, etc without addressing the issues they have). Instead we're now directed to use a generic "you removed content from an article" template? That makes no sense and only serves to further confuse a new user.--Crossmr12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try {{uw-m1}} and {{uw-m2}}. If you really want, levels 3 and 4 can be created specifically for maintenance templates; however, the purpose of warning templates is to inform a user that our policy states than certain behavior can result in a block. If they already know from m1 and m2 that removing maintenance templates without good cause is Considered harmful, we can move to more standardized blanking-can-result-in-blocking warning templates. Best to keep it simple, I think. GracenotesT § 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-project and uw-template series
A user has created a Uw-project and uw-template series. These are meant for vandalism to a speciific namespace. Do we really need these? I think the uw-vandalism series works fine for all namespace. {And one again, maybe we should make it mandatory to suggest it on the talk page, so a little discussion can happen to see if we really need it or not.) --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 14:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about what benefit such specification can bring. At this point, it may be a good idea to consolidate redundant templates: TT was unbelievable crufty, and I'm sure we don't want to reform it twice. Vandalism is vandalism, and namespaces are essentially not something the policy differentiates. GracenotesT § 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why so many templates at lvl 4 redirect to vand4, was when we started this whole show, it was to try and cut down on the amount of templates that were in existance and to call certain types of edits, exactly as they are, vandalism. We also discussed and implemented, so as not to appear to boiler plate that every template has the capacity to add additional wording. This is done by the second parser and I think for the amount of times the above type of warning would be issued, the v series could be used in it's place, but making it more personalised. For the reasons you have all have mentioned above I'm not particularly in favour of these new templates though it should be noted we do have uw-upv and uw-tpv.
I've mentioned it before, but I now think any new templates that comes through here for the uw touch, so to speak, should be presented here, to give a chance for input and scrutiny of the community prior to posting them up on the front page. The templates that are presented on these pages are deemed to be official, and before they are open to use by all there should be at least some time allowed for reflection. Anyone is free to comment here so it's not like we are creating a template cabal, but I am beginning to believe this is important. Should we add this to the FAQ, with a guide to how to suggest, create implement or apply these templates? Khukri17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe putting another notice at the top of UTM saying to come here first? Also, I actually never thought of that fact that we have upv and tpv. Maybe we don't really need those either. Those should probably be redirected. As for the newest template and project ones, they haven't been put to use yet, so they can just be deleted. TFD? --RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uw-tpv is more about refactoring talk comments than vandalism (and perhaps should be renamed to something like {{uw-refactor1}}). As for Uw-upv, the only useful feature there is the note asking an anon to log in, which is useful for assuming good faith. I also use it for user page vandalism, although {{uw-v1}} might work nearly as well. GracenotesT § 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a little awkward. How about, "Please do not add unreferenced controversial biographical information to Wikipedia articles on living persons. Thank you."--Kubigula(talk)15:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that it does any harm. The lines he added full stops on are the comments you see when you hover the mouse over the item in the list. It doesn't affect the warning in itself. --Jackaranga22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-c&pmove
I updated the phrasing of this warning because it created a sentence fragment if all parameters weren't put in (I'm not sure how to get rid of the space before the period without causing a problem when the parameters are filled). The documentation for that warning needs to be changed to explain that it has an exta parameter to designate the destination of the cut & paste move. The full template should read {{subst:uw-c&pmove|Article cut from|to= Article pasted to|Additional text|subst=subst:}}. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the spaces need to be inserted only if the variable is present, but the #if strips leading spaces. The trick is to use a HTML entity for space, such as  . Check this diff to see it in action. Anomie01:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for a warning against impersonating other users (in particular, impersonating an admin) and either I missed it completely, or it doesn't exist. This is an obviously unacceptable practice and there should probably be a template message to those who do so. Bob fit08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It happens in my opinion very rarely, and I have always been of the opinion that a personalised message is always better. Due to the rarity of this type of problem getting the one size fits all type wording we have with most of the other warnings will be quite difficult. I would recommend writing a personal message. I have been involved with most of these templates since the start, and there have been so many times where I will write a personal message explaining why someone screwed up instead of a template. Impersonating an admin is a bit different, in all cases whether it's someone saying they are going to punish you (which a real admin wouldn't do) or just userboxes, report the matter to WP:ANI, it's much easier to approach the situation as an admin than arguing with someone who is is trying to bully different view points into submission. Khukri09:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uw-warn messed up
When I put "{{subst:uw-warn|Gilbert Arenas}}" it starts with this "Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made {#if:Gilbert Arenas|to Gilbert Arenas}}" The format is messed up. --AW15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the template that adds If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits.? I don't use it and can't find it but it was recommended that IP address be unlinked as that article gets a large amount of IP vandalism, most likely because we are giving the vandals a link to it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently reverted a user who left editorial comments in the article; not finding any appropriate template on WP:UTM, I ended up writing a comment in the style of a level-1 uw template for their talk page. Fortunately I checked the archives here before suggesting new templates for this purpose, and found mention of this template.
Hmmm. I meant to create a uw version of this template a while back, but I forgot. So, kudos to Khukri and Anomie for making it happen so quickly!--Kubigula(talk)13:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question about unsourced3 leading to v4 and being blockable
Hi,
About your edit to WP:UTM, removing the 4th level link to uw-v4, this was discussed quite a while ago, with regards to these type of warnings. In the end it came down to, if someone has received the full monty of warnings 1 - 3, and not initiated any discussions about the matter upon prompting, then this sort of edit, by forcing unsourced info upon the community without discussion and it is constantly being reverted did constitute as being vandalism. Cheers Khukri14:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you issued any of these warnings, because the only editor I've given a level 3 warning doesn't deserve a block for his next unsourced inclusion of content. Possibly a user RfC could be considered, however to be honest even that would heavy-handed. Addhoc14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflictConsidering I wrote over half of these warning, I would say it gives me a reasonable inkling of how they are used. You have misread the situation, if you issued a lvl3 unsourced warning, after his next inclusion, he would receive a v4 and then a block, not a block straight after his lvl3 as you wrote. In any given situation someone should receive a lvl1 or 2, depending on if they'd done it previously, then a lvl3 unsourced, then a v4. So to be blocked they would have had to have repeated the same offence 4 times without discussing the issue. No matter that this completely falls foul of 3rr, even with the best intentions in the world, I'd have trouble AGF with someone who had inserted info 4 times into the same article without discussion. Khukri15:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not sure from your response if you have actually ever used any of these warnings. Yep, ok you wrote them, however after I used them, I toned them down, because they seemed to be overkill. Could I suggest you have a look at User talk:Anishshah19 to see what I mean? Thanks, Addhoc15:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon no need to be facetious, of course I've used the warnings, anyone who is round here long enough uses them after a while admin or not. OK matter in hand, looks like your warnee has a done this at least once before, so I wouldn't have started with a level 1. Lvl2 on the other hand is quite explicit in it's instruction. Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you.. Now assuming they've ignored you, you given an explicit intruction not to insert this material with out discussing it. Then you issue lvl3, for ignoring your previous instruction, this is simple, you ignored the first warning, if you continue a block will be issued. After that, once issuing a v4, if you are ignored again then a block via WP:ANI would be the only option. I've reverted your change as well to unsourced3, changes like this should be discussed at WT:UTM. It is clear you disagree with me in this, so I have copied this discussion over to WT:UTM to gain greater input. Khukri15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that there should exist a less severe warning on copyright issues. {{Uw-copyright1}} currently redirects to {{Uw-copyright}}, which immediately starts threatening with blocks and such, while new (or anonymous) users may not even be aware of our strict copyright policy. What about redirecting {{Uw-copyright1}} and {{Uw-copyright2}} to {{Nothanks}} instead? SalaSkan21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because copyright violations are a serious problem for Wikipedia that can cause legal problems for the Wikimedia foundation. Also, why would we redirect a uw- warning to an old warning? --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree, copyright violations are a serious issue, and if nobody would block a 1st time violator, they need to understand that the violation is severe. -- lucasbfrtalk13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had this on the corner of my desk for a while now, I removed all the licensing text from the template, and redirected the people using {{db-copyvio}} to a new template, {{sd-copyvio}}. subliminal message: guys, we need to start these templates one day. -- lucasbfrtalk16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template code should be placed in shortcut toolbox
Would it not make warnings a lot easier if the codes could be placed in the box with shortcuts for code and extra characters that appears just below the text in the editing screen? We could then just type the name of the article, it would surely save a lot of time. Obviously we wouldn't need all of them, but we could fit almost all of the commonly used templates on a single line. Richard00100:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there plenty of scripts you can install into your monobook.js (or equivalent) that do that sort of thing for you and more? And as a bonus, the whole list of templates isn't there to confuse newbies. Anomie00:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it depends upon the severity of said user's vandalism. If it's a relatively minor offense, you might consider adding {{subst:Welcome-anon-vandal}} or some other warning to their talk page. For more minor warnings for an IP address, look about halfway down this page. If the offense was more severe, go to this page and post the warning that fits their offense on their talk page. For example, if the user removed a little bit of content from an article once, you might consider adding the appropriate level 1 warning {{subst:uw-delete1}} to their page. If they do it again, or they deleted more content, add a level 2 warning {{subst:uw-delete2}}. There are 4 warning levels, each increasing in severity before the user is blocked. Ok, that explanation probably didn't make much sense—if you want a better explanation, feel free to ask me on my talk page or wait for another user to reply. Arwen Undomieltalk06:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any rationale behind {{uw-delete}} and {{uw-delete2}} referring only to "articles" rather than to the more inclusive "pages"? It seems to be the only applicable template for content removal for pages as well. Noting that {{uw-delete3}} and {{uw-delete4}} in the same series both refer to pages, I suspect there is no specific rationale and, unless I'm wrong, suggest harmonizing the first two.--Fuhghettaboutit01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the uw-delete templates are referring to more than just articles, I removed the article references on uw-1 & 2 so that they can be used on other pages besides articles. --Hdt83Chat06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement; I'm almost certain there was no conscious rationale for using the word "article" in those two templates.--Kubigula(talk)18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest adding a new message template that specifically addresses when people repeatedly insert or re-add blatant grammar and formatting errors to articles, such as in the following two counterproductive edits that have been made over and over again by two accounts: example one,
example two. I have not seen any message template that addresses that specific problem. The vandalism template seems too generic.Spylab13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something along the lines of a vandalism warning that has different levels. This is specifically for people who clearly have no grasp of the English language and who re-insert the same terrible grammar and formatting errors to articles over and over again.Spylab17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are good faith edits, just poorly done, my own opinion would be that escalating warnings would be inappropriate. I've run across the type you're talking about in my own editing. Leaving a personal note that you're going to help out by cleaning up their "Russ-lish", "Spang-lish" or whatever, works much better especially if you're careful to phrase it in a helpful manner. If they revert your fixes, that's another story entirely, though. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to enumerate warnings for organisational purposes on userpages, as with this:
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
Note, however, that the size of the third-level warning's image (25 px) causes it to run into the 4th warning -- causing indentation. Reducing the warning to 15 pixels solves the issue. My only issue is with images in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level warnings classes paired with single lines of text (note how in this case, 1st and 2nd level do not overrun). For 4th level, I do not see issue: my formatting provides two lines of whitespace between the final warning and the admin notification and/or administrative act; so it clears it up. Any other concurrence with reducing image sizes for 1st, 2nd, or 3rd lvl warnings paired with single lines of text (see below)?
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
I strongly agree with reducing all the image sizes in these warnings. The gap below the initial line (due to the leading image) is distinctly unprofessional. Could someone go through them all and reduce the icon size to 15px? --Quiddity20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Article, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the slight gap between the first and second lines of text on the level one and two templates, frankly I'd never have noticed it if you hadn't pointed it out. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people like numbering some like icons, and having gone backwards n forwards on this a few times, this comes up as being the best solution. If anyone can find a way of allowing the two to mix then recommend away (don't mention tables, already been there as well look it up), but we're always open to suggestions. Khukri21:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I haven't seen discussed is the mentioned vertical alignment idea:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Article, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elipongo wrote: "If you're talking about the slight gap ..." Yup, the slight gap which drives typography/design folks nuts! Though with all the people using sub/superscript in their signatures around here (which also cause a gap (and yes, as do the citation superscript numbers)), one would think it was normal to ignore erratic leading... ;) --Quiddity18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is indeed that widespread, then the correct course would be to make a feature request or a bug report so the problem can be solved project wide. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bug report was made and according to the report, this is what is supposed to happen when you float images to the left and line them up. See [11] --Hdt83Chat07:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a request for a template for letting people know they should upload their (free use) images to Commons, however I haven't had any response thus far. I've used the text by copying and pasting four times yesterday, and I will no doubt use it again in the future as well. I think others would also benefit from using this template and being given such messages. The proposal can be found at WP:TR#A notice for people who upload media to Wikipedia instead of Commons. I would make the template myself, but I have no experience making this type of template, so I probably wouldn't make a very good job of it. Richard00100:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's at {{Un-commons}}. I added some text to make it clear that fair use/non-free content should not be uploaded to commons. We don't want to send problems their way. Can an editor better at template coding than I am please fix the usage section so it doesn't include the header? Also, the word "to" is not appearing in the first usage section, right after "images/media".--Fuhghettaboutit11:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? I didn't see any problem with the word "to", unless it was because the page needed purging (when you transclude a template into itself, purging is often required). Anomie12:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks., much better. I did ctrl+f5 before I posted the issue regarding the "to" not showing up; I think my cache is stubborn (reagrdless, it's fixed now). Please make any other improvements you (or anyone) deem appropriate. I haven't categorized it yet. Do you think it goes in user warning templates? It doesn't seem like a perfect fit but many templates in that category are not quite "warnings".--Fuhghettaboutit13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need two sets of templates for doing the same thing. The templates are just about the same anyway, just the uw templates look more professional - we should standardise the way we warn vandals. Ryan Postlethwaite23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us feel that the new templates look far less professional. Given the fact that these aren't used in articles, there really isn't any harm in having more than one set; vandal warnings needn't be uniform in appearance. —David Levy23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block templates
On the block templates, should the images be changed to ? After all, the x has a transparent background, and SVG's really have no advantage considering that Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox render them as PNG's. What do you guys think? Springbob Squirepants02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to the relevant edit (e.g. vandalism)
When I add a warning I like to add a link to the relevant diff as well. Perhaps these templates could include a second field added after the first pipe to allow for the inclusion of that diff in the warning itself, such as {{uw-bv|introduced species|http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Introduced_species&curid=394815&diff=143190671&oldid=141911373}}. Richard00100:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second field in most uw templates is used to add additional comments, in place of "Thank you" in the AGF and neutral versions. IMO, a named parameter for a diff link wouldn't be out of place though. Anomie01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, we originally intended the second parser (which exists in all templates, or should) to be used for this type of thing. This isn't the first request we've had for this, and I think as it a standard in all of the vandal fighting tools maybe we should include it in the templates.
Is it possible to embed two parsered if's? so you end up with something along the lines of [[:{{{1}}}]] or [{{{diff}}}|:{{{1}}}]. If someone can tell me the exact syntax either myself or Hdt can do a find replace on all the templates. Khukri09:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean something like {{#if:{{{1|}}}|as you did in {{#if:{{{diff|}}}|[{{{diff}}} {{{1}}}]|[[:{{{1}}}]]}}}}? Anomie18:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh as easy as that ;), can you run a test page on the page following please. Each page is slightly different so I imagine I'll need to do them all one by one but using AWB. User:Khukri/temp. Show me it in action (so to speak) and I'll sort it out. Khukri19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking for. In general though, replacing the [[:{{{1}}}]] with {{#if:{{{diff|}}}|[{{{diff}}} {{{1}}}]|[[:{{{1}}}]]}} should do the trick. Note that this #if shouldn't be included in the {{{subst|}}} trick, for the same reason the "subst=subst:" shouldn't be used unless the article name is supplied.
Blatant spam
I think we could do with a warning just like {{uw-bv}} except for spam. It's inappropriate to give someone a 'last warning' or 'only warning' template for their first offense, but when it's blatant advertising, which it usually is, something gentler but making it clear that they can be blocked without further notice if they persist would help. {{uw-bs}}, anyone? Richard00100:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I think you can just use uw-spam4im. I really don't see how you can decide when to use bv and 4im anyway. Also, we may be feeding the vandals with that proposed template name. :) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon, I've asked Evilclown for some clarification, if the warning was infact for citing Godwin's Law or was it for this which I think more likely? Edit Also this isn't the correct forum for these types of problems, I would suggest WP:ANI in future. Khukri13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that earlier; looking at the context, it appears to me as vaguely relevant nonsense rather than blatantly defamatory information. Anomie13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, that has to be it. I can see the reason someone might cite me on that. I was just providing "evidence" that the "cunting cunt" was in wikipedia, at least at some point. 24.205.34.21721:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
misleading edit summaries
I mentioned this a while ago and would like to request it now: I think a template for misleading edit summaries would be a good idea. I'm talking about when it says something like "cleanup" or "typo" or some other misleading thing but really means "changed the meaning" - similar to marking something as "m" when it isn't. A template for that would be useful - it can be a little different from just straight-up vandalism, as it is designed to sneak vandalism in and get people not to look at the change. Anyway, I'd find it useful. Tvoz|talk17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is appropriate to give a "one time only" warning, rather than repeated warnings. If you are only going to warn someone once then it needs to be worded slightly differently (ie only warning, rather than final warning). John Hayestalk13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when any first time warnings are issued, editors should receive at least a lvl 1 which is WP:AGF, and then perhaps a 3 then 4. If it is a IP address that has offended before, remember there's a high chance it's not the same person behind that IP then a neutral warning (lvl2) followed by a lvl4 should suffice. The IM warnings are used for high level vandal IP's, such as a schools , institution, common ISP's, or vandalism which is deemed to be particularly nasty, but often all will be blocked on sight if an admin sees it first. There is a increasingly prevalent use of the im or bv warnings on first time vandals which IMHO do not warrant this, and I may take a look into writing something up to prevent this.
The whole system should be geared up towards flexibility, whilst trying to maintain our standards whilst dealing with people who might not have the same level of integrity, and at all times even in the face of adversity, trying to assume good faith. Khukri15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure what you are talking about here. Can you give more details like what templates we are dealing with? --Hdt83Chat05:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a link to BJAODN, but a point was raised that this probably just served to feed and/or encourage joke vandalism. I've come to agree with this point - don't feed the vandals.--Kubigula(talk)17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think telling users not to make jokes, and telling them we have a special page for jokes and joke edits, in the same sentence, is a bit contradictory, as Kubigula says, it can only encourage vandalism. John Hayestalk18:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this
Would somehthing like this be worth while. I thought of this today but others may think its a waist of time of effort.
Any have a look if you like put it to use possibly.
Well, this may confuse some users in to thinking that the IP info at the end may the signature of the IP who left that message which would not be good. If you look at WP:UW, we already have a similar template (Template:S/wnote displaying the IP addresses information and contribs. --Hdt83Chat22:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Templating the regulars
I've been pointed to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I disagree with it and rather agree with Wikipedia:Template the regulars, but have also noticed some problems with the use of templates on regulars which might require the creation of alternate first level warnings for regulars.
Now, in the case I used the 3RR warning on a regular in an edit war who had made 3 reverts. If I was edit warring, I'd personally appreciate the warning. I've never been blocked and want to avoid being blocked. But I've received negative responses about this from a couple of users.
First off, what is the definition of "regular". Am I a regular? I edit almost every day, and have been doing so for 4 months.
Anyway, back to my point. When a "regular" has made a clear violation of policy, I want to assume good faith. According to this page, only the level 1 warnings assume good faith. But they have all this welcome to Wikipedia verbiage perceived as condescending by some. So, with a "regular", should we jump directly to level 2 warnings to avoid being condescending? or do we need some new level 1 warnings without the welcoming tone? IPSOS (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not leave them an actual message, instead of a template? Don't you think someone is more likely to respond positively to your request if you take the time to talk to them, rather than dropping a form letter on their page? Antandrus (talk)16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I was told I was wrong and a liar. This illustrates the problem with not being able to template regulars. Just because a user is regular, doesn't mean that they are always right, civil, assume good faith, etc. If those things were true, then certainly templating regulars would be silly. But "regulars" can be just as wrong as newbies... IPSOS (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you got a harsh response from a personalized message, then you probably would have gotten an even harsher response from a warning template. There are some special use templates that are appropriate helpful tips for "regulars" - e.g. {{Uw-warn}}, {{Uw-subst}}. Beyond that, I personally agree with WP:DTTR and Antandrus that it's much preferable to compose a personalized message when dealing with regulars.--Kubigula(talk)16:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are situations that occur again and again. they require basically identical msgs again and again. I don't see why anyone should object to getting those msgs via a template. if "templatign the regulars" were forbidden i would just store my standard msgs offline and paste them in, to no particular gain for anyone. Now I do object to people who say "don't blame me, that was the template's language." If you put it on someone's talk page, you said it, a template is just a tool, particularly templates not part of a standard or mandated process. But consider an example. i patrol the speedy delete category a lot. I rather often find speedy tags placed on articles that I don't consider valid speedys. i remove those tags. i am not in anyway required to notify anyone, but I usually choose to do so. I do this both as a courtesy: to tell the user who placed the tag that it had been removed and why (so that it can be discussed if the user wishes) and as a form of education -- too many people are IMO too quick with db tags, and I have has a number indicate that they will rethink their practice after I have notified them. Now i notify with {{Speedy-Warn}}. If I had to personally type the content of that every time, i would be far less likely to notify, and IMO something would be lost. DES(talk)21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed a merge - the essays conflict too much to co-exist peacefully. If that fails, I suggest a joint MfD nomination. Carcharoth10:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they conflict. They express precisely oppsoed points of view on a subject wher there is no consensus. That is why they are essay's, not poolicies. Each should include a link to the other, but there is no good reason for a merge, and les for an MfD. DES(talk)19:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
need a template for labelling warnings as inappropriate?
As it is easy for trolls to add inappropriate warnings to people's talk pages, and difficult for the victim to remove them without further accusations arising from removing warnings, I feel that there needs to be a way to make it easy for editors of good standing to stand up in defence of a user who has been maligned with inappropriate warnings. We should maybe add a template (with some appropriate icon), which says something like:
I believe that the preceding warning message is not applicable to the actions of this user.
Of course, such support is only worth as much as the reputation of the user who has signed it; that is for the reader to judge. And the template documentation should make it clear that it is designed for defending other users against inappropriate warnings, and that anyone who uses it to respond to warnings on their own talk page will not enhance their reputation that way.
There should be no problem with one removing templated warnings from one's user page. It is generally agreed that users are allowed to archive their user talk pages at will, and someone pointedly raising an objection to this will hopefully be corrected. If you disagree with the application of a template and wish to say so, responding with feigned indifference (that is, with another template) will surely escalate mattters more than discussion, or merely ignoring the template, will. GracenotesT§22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need a template that explains the irony of using a template to disclaim the use of a template. Seriously though, I think the person can just type in that they feel the warning is not justified. Until(1 == 2)23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The standardized uw style is particularly adapted, and intended, for warnings of possible misconduct, generally warnings that are part of an informational series. There are a number of templates, designed for use of user talk pages, which are more notifications than warnings, and do not follow this style (and IMO should not) I would like to be able to list these on this page, probably in the "other" section. But in the past I've been told that templates that did not fit the uw-style were not welcome on this page.
I refer specifically to {{HangonUse}}, {{Speedy-Warn}}, and {{SD warn-needed}}. Each of these generates a section header, so that they do not conform to uw style. IMO each of these is more useful because of the section header, but each would also be more useful if listed here for others to learn about and use. I am fairly sure that there are other templates to which this also applies. Come to think of it, {{AFDWarning}} and {{AFDWarningNew}} also fit this description. DES(talk)20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. A minor tangent: I haven't been active here in a bit, but am I the only one who thinks that the list of single-use notice templates is damn near the definition of "template-cruft"? Not every single less-than-optimal behavior requires a template. Eh. GracenotesT§21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I have occasion to warn/notify three different people about the same behavior or situation, i think it is worth my while to create a template as boilerplate for future occasions. While these could live in my userspace, I think it saves effort if I share them -- others may find them useful too. Several people have expressed, for example that {{HangonUse}} seems like a good idea. IMO the same can be said for a fair number of these single use templates, though it may well be that some of them are unneeded. Not all of these by any means are truly "warnings" many are dimply routine notifications that there is no reason for people to have to retype time after time. DES(talk)03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the term "template-creep" myself. While I have tried to resist the excessively specialized templates, I do think we should collect most or all of the generally useful template messages here as a central repository. That being said, there are a number of templates here that seem to be redundant, and I hope to propose some housecleaning soon.--Kubigula(talk)04:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of sourced info
Is there a template covering the deletion/removal of sourced info, possibly with replacement by unsourced info? Something like that would be useful to me, as it's more specific than "uw-delete". The only template I see on the list related to sourcing is for adding unsourced info. - BillCJ02:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a specific one, but {{uw-delete2|Article name|You removed properly sourced content}} would work. It comes out as:
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Article name, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. You removed properly sourced content.
I think even newbies of the site will get into the flow of how things roll here, don't need to press every little issue. — Moeε14:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a template that can be used for users who place a {{hangon}} template below a CSD template but do not post a reason on the talk page. I'm not very good at wording such things (which is a good reason we have templates, lol), so if anyone else agrees that we could use this template and wants to create it, go for it. Thanks. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs09:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defacing warnings - template warning against that
I've seen cases where users deface/remove vandalism warnings in their user talk and other editors come right in with a template that says "Don't do that." I've been looking for that template (the one flagging removal of warnings from one's own user talk) but I can't find it in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Did I just miss it or was I seeing something other than a template (macro, cut & paste, etc)?
There's uw-tpv1, which warns the user not to edit other people's comments on talk pages, but I'm not aware of anything that specifically addresses editing templated warnings. Natalie19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently policy does not prohibit the removal of warnings form ones talk page as stated here but it is looked down upon. But if the deface their talk page (like with personal attacks, etc.) then it should be treated as vandalism. --Hdt83Chat19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the specific case most recently was someone corrupting the warning (i.e. substituting "good" for "vandalism" and other such nonsense). That would seem to call for a vandalism warning as Hdt83 says. The earlier incidents I saw of just blanking a page (if showing bad faith) seems like Natalie's suggestion of uw-tpv1 would be in order.
Would a template specifically for this seem to be useful? I only really see it once a month or so, but it's not like I'm a really active vandal patroller. --KNHaw(talk)19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a specific template is necessary, since tpv1 really does cover this action. In general, editing other users comments so that it looks like they said something they did is a bad thing, whether their comment was a vandalism warning or a welcome. Natalie20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What?! Since when was this changed? I was always under the impression that WP:USER was to the contrary. I'm sure I remember using templates like KNHaw is referring to. -- Reaper X17:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be, but we got rid of them because overzealous vandal fighters started revert warring over user talk pages, claiming that the warnings they placed there should remain as a permanent record. In short they were generating more heat than light. >Radiant<09:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing alterations?
Love the templates; use them often. :) I'm wondering if there's a process in place for proposing alterations to them. My concern is with {{Template:Uw-delete1}}. I believe that it would more properly show an assumption of good faith simply by changing "Please be more careful when editing pages" to "Please be careful when editing pages." The former, to me, seems a bit more chastising than it needs to be, since sometimes editors have intended to remove the content but failed to communicate why. I often wind up manually revising that one and have not yet learned to make templates of my own. :) --Moonriddengirl13:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good place to propose changes - or you can be bold if it's relatively minor. I think your suggestion is a good one, so I've gone ahead and made the change.--Kubigula(talk)17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Missing an optional diff= parameter as in the {Test} templates
All the Uw- templates are sorely missing an optional diff= parameter, as seen for instance on {{Test2}}. Having the diffs available with warnings is important long-term, and currently there are only two inferior ways of doing so:
1) Tack it after the template (bleh)
{{subst:Uw-test2|Michael Jackson (disambiguation)}} See the [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_%28disambiguation%29&diff=151188496&oldid=150216277 diff].
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Michael Jackson (disambiguation), even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. See the diff.
2) Hack it into the template (bug and bleh)
A diff URL can't be used directly as second parameter |Additional text because it embeds an = sign, so one needs to know the |2=Additional text hack:
{{subst:Uw-test2|Michael Jackson (disambiguation)|2=See the [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_%28disambiguation%29&diff=151188496&oldid=150216277 diff].}}
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Michael Jackson (disambiguation), even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. See the diff.
In both cases, I don't find having the diff trailing as an afterthought to be as readable and convenient as the nicely integrated way it's done in the Test templates. (As an aside, the 2= hack should be mentionned on the Uw- templates documentation; wanting to add a diff is quite a common thing.)
3) Add an optional diff= parameter (as in the {Test} templates)
{{subst:Test2|Michael Jackson (disambiguation)|diff=http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jackson_%28disambiguation%29&diff=151188496&oldid=150216277}}
Shouldn't there be a warning for users who use misinformative edit summaries? For example, this IP has twice claimed to revert vandalism in the edit summary while vandalising articles. Another time, the IP claimed to correct typo and grammar mistakes. Well, you get the idea, right? I sent a message on the user's talk page, but was surprized to see that there was no warning template for issues like these. Also, what about inappropriate edit summaries (personal attacks, gibberish, foreign languages, etc.)? Anyways, it's just a little thought. ^^ ZouavmanLeZouave14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary personal deals with personal attacks in edit summaries. A template may be needed for that also, but the thing you are talking about has been discussed before, I think. I remember coming up with a proposed name: "uw-missummary". It is a good idea, as it's a common thing. --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a helpful idea to me. Hopefully the misuse of edit summaries can be limited via a simple notification template, but i'm a wee bit skeptical. --Rocksanddirt18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the user continues the behavior, one can just switch to the generic vandalism or npa warnings, since the user has already been warned about what is specifically wrong. Natalie20:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-v1, reword a bit?
I felt a bit unnatural giving out uw-v1 because of "we invite ... our encyclopedia", since I don't consider Wikipedia belonging to me, at least no more than to others who want to edit constructively. :) How about: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, ..." Let me know what you think please. Thank you. :) Rhanyeia14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Collectively, we are Wikipedia. If it said, "I invite...", then I agree that it would be awkward. As it is, I don't have any issue with individual editors speaking on behalf of the Wikipedia community in cases of clear vandalism.--Kubigula(talk)16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting! I guess I felt that if I say "we" it includes "I" too, and unnatural to invite if other constructive editors already have the same possibility to edit than I. How about: "Welcome to Wikipedia! Although we welcome everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, ..." Any opinions? :) Best regards Rhanyeia16:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. How about if we said, ""Welcome to Wikipedia! Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia..."?--Kubigula(talk)17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be good. :) I encountered this same message when ClueBot says it. It was "did not appear to be constructive" instead of "was not constructive", and I think that sounded good, giving a soft tone. Best regards Rhanyeia18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've made the change to {{uw-v1}} and the other level one templates that used similar language. I also changed "our encyclopedia" to "the encyclopedia" (or just Wikipedia), as the former seemed a bit exclusionary. As always, feel free to tweak again if you think it can be said better.--Kubigula(talk)03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your work! :) Could you still take a look at Template:Uw-mos1 please? And none of the templates you modified was the one ClueBot used, do you know what the bots use? I found its messages here. Best regards Rhanyeia10:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change to {{uw-mos1}} - do you see some other issue with this template? As to your second point, bots use their own messaging scripts that are developed by the bot operators.--Kubigula(talk)16:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bad idea, though I do have two issues/concerns. First, I'm not sure it's really needed. If someone posts on AN/I and it's clearly the wrong place, someone else will almost always point that out. If it's being pointed out on the thread, it seems unnecessary to point it out again on the poster's talk page. Second, we have lots of forums where someone might post a message that actually belongs elsewhere. We already have {{uw-notaiv}} and {{uw-uaa}}, and I don't know that we want to clutter UTM with a separate template for every possible misposting. So, if we do go forward with this template, I suggest making it a bit more generic to cover various possible mispostings. However, I lean towards thinking this is an individual message rather than template situation.--Kubigula(talk)21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing old warnings
I have noticed in several cases that IP addresses with old warnings on their talk pages can cause confusion. For example, I recall a case where an IP was reported to WP:AIV because it had "vandalized after a final warning" - but the final warning had been given 7 months earlier (i.e. it had nothing to do with the recent vandalism). I'm sure this happens often since I don't check WP:AIV on a daily basis or anything. Should we be deleting these old, obviously irrelevant warnings as a matter of course? (maybe the arbitrary date could be "the most recent warning is more than 1 month old). If the IP has been blocked before, that can easily be seen in the block log, so there is no problem about admins not noticing a long-term pattern of vandalism. ugen6406:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing written in stone about what happens to these talk pages, except for about the last year editors have been able remove warnings from their talk pages without any problems. On a problematic vandal IP address, or an institute IP address, the editors very rarely use these pages in discussion with the community, hence it is I believe up to us to control these pages. I have my own system when I go through talk pages, of formatting it in the month/numbered system and more often as not I tend to delete warnings older than six months - 8 months. I think it's only the recent pattern of vandalism that is interesting and if we are going to block we also automatically see their block log anyway. I know exactly how you feel with regards to AIV, yesterday I dished out 5 {{uw-aiv}} templates as all 5 reports on the page had not been given warnings or final warnings. cheers Khukri07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also in mind that admins see the block log when they block an IP. Therefore old warnings can be safely removed if they resulted in a block. -- lucasbfrtalk18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to uw-upv?
I started to use uw-upv earlier today to warn a user, but changed my mind because of this sentence: "If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes." That seems inappropriate in cases where you're sure that the user isn't the same person, like this one [12]. (I'd think that's usually the case, actually -- if you feel you need to warn the person for the edit, it's probably for something that the actual user wouldn't have done.) So, what do people people think about either removing that sentence or making a uw-upv2 that doesn't include it? Pinball2213:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a big fan of that sentence either, and I've only ever used this template if I am virtually certain it's not the user. So, I'd support removal.--Kubigula(talk)17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(removed my earlier comment) Well... Personally I would only use this template if I have reasons to assume the edit was made in good faith (eg, someone writing there instead of the talk page, or a neutral edit and in this case the section might be useful te remind that user to log in), and use vand if I think this is vandalism. -- lucasbfrtalk18:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But since this one specifically says "may be considered vandalism", it's not really useful as a good-faith reminder for those situations either, in my mind. (In fact, I wouldn't mind if there were separate templates for those cases, though that might be going overboard with the templates.) Anyway, yeah, I just used uw-vandalism1 in this case, but I'd like there to be a useful user-page-vandalism one. Pinball2218:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please enlighten me as to what {{uw-warn}} is supposed to accomplish? I feel as though anyone who would recieve such a message is already well aware of the ideas conveyed. Warning at every opportunity seems punitive at best. Isopropyl23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Administrator intervention against vandalism states that before a vandal may be reported, the abusive editor must have both received a "proper set" of warnings, and still continued to vandalize after a recent last warning. If the first person to catch the vandal assumes good faith, then that means the vandal will get as many as four warnings before being reported to AIV. In an ideal world where editors immediately catch vandalism and issue warnings, then vandals would be blocked after just five attacks of vandalism. However when a vandal gets reverted without also receiving a warning, then getting the persistent vandal blocked takes that much longer. While {{uw-warn}} does nothing about editors who cannot be bothered to leave warnings, it is a fast, friendly, and informative way to bring up to speed those editors who are new to the vandal fighting process. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent wording, unreferenced controversial information about living persons (i.e. Uw-biog2)
The wording of the Uw-bio template is inconsistent in a problematic way. The template is named adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons, but essential wording that describes the offending edit varies, depending on the level warning that is being used. The difference is that level one and level three warnings are faithful to the name of the template and chide addition of any unreferenced, controversial biographical information, while level two and level four warnings state that such information should not be added to articles about living people. For example, the name of the template suggests that it is appropriate to warn about defamatory edits in an article about a high school, but the wording of the second and fourth level warnings is inapplicable because, although the information may be about a living person, the article itself is not about a living person, but a high school.
I propose that the wording of the second level and fourth level warnings be revised to remove the reference to articles about living people, and instead conform to the name of the template, i.e., addition of controversial information about living persons, no matter the name or subject-matter of the article. Best ► DRTïllberġ ◄Talk20:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can these be given short memorable text, like the old warn1 etc? I only use these half as often because I have to go & look them up. Johnbod21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do have shortcuts - {{uw-v1}} for vandalism 1; {{uw-d1}} for delete1; {{uw-t1}} for test 1 etc.
{{RFCpolicy | section="Don't template the regulars" !! reason=A discussion having to do with the adage "don't template the regulars" to the policy page. !! time=23:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)}}
This should not have been added to the guideline. There is no consensus for it. There are in fact many valid objections to the whole essay on Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars. Please make sure there is a consensus for this before adding it again. IPSOS (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is no consensus for either templating or not the regulars. I'm fairly new, and don't know exactly what I think about the issue yet. I like templates, they are generally nicely phrased and follow guidelines on proper behavior. Many are also geared toward new users. --Rocksanddirt16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless, does anyone have a problem with the essay being mentioned, so long as the mention does not advocate one way or another? GracenotesT§02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be mentioned in policy while opinion is so divided on the matter, neither way is required, it is really just a stylistic choice. Until(1 == 2)04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support to keep this article with some changes.Recently a newbie posted a warning msg on my userpage stating that i have posted copyrighted material, which actually i hadn't.this policy may help established editors not to face such harrasment and badname.Check my talkpage for details.AmartyabagTALK2ME05:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that shows that 'templating regulars' is ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst, in resolving just about anything. >Radiant<08:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the warnings, and in most cases the only difference between level1 and level2 warnings is the inclusion of welcome messages in level1. Therefore I suggest two changes:
change the wording distinguishing level1 and level2. Both assume good faith, but level1 includes a welcome message.
add a section that there is no consensus about templating regulars with links to WP:DTTRandWP:TTR. Note that some regulars find the welcoming tone of level1 messages condescending, and recommend that if the choice is made to template a regular, it might be a good idea to skip level1 and go directly to the level2 message, which is shorter, neutral, and assumes good faith.
In cases where there is more of a difference between l1 and l2, the messages should be changed to make them appropriate for a first warning for regulars. IPSOS (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not problem mentioning that level 1 contains a welcome message. But there is no point in bringing up an issue in the policy and then saying "we have no consensus". There are also 27 other things we don't have consensus on that we can mention. I say that we leave it out, people can quote the essay in their arguments but it has no place at all in policy. Until(1 == 2)13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Unit1==2, add info regarding the welcome message on level 1's and that it's the only substantive difference between that and level 2, and leave out the discussion part. --Rocksanddirt14:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't quit the only substantive difference. Level 1 notices explicitly assume that a good-faith erro has been made, level 2 notices make no such assumption. Of course this arguably makes level 2 that much more appropriate for an experienced editor, but it is an additional difference. DES(talk)16:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the second level messages, they are (for the most part) the same as the first level messages except for the lack of welcoming language. So I disagree that they don't assume good faith. That is simply how they are described. The description can be changed... IPSOS (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at several of them, then:
Warning template comparison:
Series
Level 1 text
Level 2 text
Summery of difs
vand
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
1 includes welcome language, and bends over backward to assume good faith and mistake rather than malice. It points to the sandbox. 2 does none of these.
delete
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Wikipedia. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.
1 includes welcome language and is at considerable pains to assume good faith. 2 assumes good faith, but rather more weakly.
spam
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
1 includes welcome language, but is otherwise similar to 2
joke
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want.
Thank you for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Thank you.
1 includes welcome language, and assumes good faith. 2 is brusquer, but at least implicitly still assumes good faith
create
Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
1 includes welcome language, and clearly assumes good faith. 2 does neither.
upload
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your test worked, and the image that you uploaded has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.
Please refrain from uploading disruptive images with no encyclopedic value. It is considered vandalism. Thank you.
1 includes welcome language, and callas the act a 'test" thereby assuming good faith. 2 calls it "disruptive" and 'vandalism" thereby assuming bad faith.
image
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia; it is considered to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
speaks of "experimenting" thereby assuming good faith. 2 speaks of "inappropriate images" and "vandalism". No welcome language in either
unsourced
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you.
1 includes welcome language, appears to assume good faith by explaining policy. 2 is neutral, but clearly does not assume bad faith.
notcensored
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is not censored, not even to remove profanity or pornography. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you.
1 includes welcome language, carefully explains policy, thereby seems to assume good faith, although not explicitly. 2 does neither, simply calling attention to the violation, but does not assume bad faith.
The tone of the level 2 warnings was intended to be slightly different, typically by referencing (and linking to) the policy on vandalism. As I look through the UTM page, it occurs to me that the "uw" templates, with some exceptions, are the ones most likely to be inappropriate, IMO, to leave on a "regular" editor's talk page. Perhaps we can convert all warnings to uw and non-uw, and use this as a rough guideline on which ones are not designed to be used in connection with long term editors.--Kubigula(talk)17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ISPOS: The intended difference between the two levels is that one assumes good faith, and the other assumes no faith. This was part of the templates' design. Level 2 is meant to imply nothing about the intentions of the templated editor: only about his/her actions. Again, it assumes no faith.
The main way in which Level 1 assumes good faith is by assuming that the editor does not know any better: that he/she does not know about a certain policy or guideline, or about the purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to assume good faith about an experienced editor's actions, it is best to not use a warning template at all—you can assume that they know better, and merely made a mistake. Level 1 is not appropriate in this case, because the purpose of Level 1 templates is not to point out that someone made a mistake; their purpose is to inform about policy. Assuming that an experienced editor is a clueless newbie who knows little about policy can be insulting to that editor.
This is why the "welcome to Wikipedia" message is included in the first level and not the second. That noticeable difference between Level 1 and Level 2 templates is a result of the more subtle good-faith-vs.-no-faith difference. GracenotesT§17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a design flaw that has been built in from the beginning of the uw_ system: There was never any agreement on what the levels actually are supposed to mean. See here for an attempt to systematize this early on, which unfortunately didn't catch on. Maybe it's a better time for it now that people are beginning to realize what a mess it is. — Sebastian16:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed changes?
Why on earth should 'regulars' receive special treatment? Who defines regular? I believe the 'Welcome to Wikipedia' phrase should serve as a useful reminder to anyone who may consider themselves slightly above the status of new or irregular editors that in all aspects of this particular project, they are not. If they consider the use of templates offensive, they really need to stop and consider why they have recieved what I hope 'regular' editors consider a measured, sensible response to whatever it is they have done. Welcome to Wikipedia! Mighty Antar20:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not special treatment, it's respect. Regular, full-time editors of this site don't like to see automated templates when they have been an editor here for over a couple of years or so. The reason it is offensive is because established editors know what they are doing and giving them the standarized "you have been warned" message is either trolling or given by someone they are in a dispute with. Instead of creating some formal guideline on it, I suggest people do what I do and just revert the smart ass who sent you the message and tell them exactly what you were doing. If that doesn't work go to the next step in dispute resolution. — Moeε09:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of arrogant kind of attitude underminding Wikipedia editors to begin with is exactly what I was talking about. — Moeε16:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, let's calm down a bit with this. Whichever way this debate goes, it's unlikely to affect either of you. Even if it does, it's still good to keep civil on the matter. My opinion on this is that there are too many vandals to write each of them a personalised message. That's where the templates come in. Vandals are unlikely to last long enough to become regulars, so why use a template for vandals on a regular user? In fact, they'd probably find it a bit patronising (I know I would). By the way, just because I agree with Moe's view doesn't mean I agree with his treatment of the situation. CarrotMan19:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what was exactly was my treatment of the situation? If someone comes to my talk page and they template me about my supposed "incivilty", "vandalism", or "violation" of image policies, that need tagging, I'm going to revert them. I'm not going to sit there and analyze or reflect on something I don't do. In fact, no regular editor of this encyclopedia should have to deal with the nonsense use of the templates. Templates are meant for users who are unfamiliar with policies and guidelines. As an editor of this site for over two years, templating me is patronizing and shows a deep lack of respect for me. If someone has an issue with what I do here, they can approach me and not be a wimp take the easy template-related way out of it. This also goes for any other situation like 3RR, or any other template. I'm aware of everything I do here, and baiting me to be incivil with template warnings shouldn't be happening. — Moeε14:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't consider it "special treatment". The fact is that the vast majority of the UTM templates were designed for communication with new users. We can't expect new users to be familiar with the myriad of WP policies and guidelines, so the templates serve as useful ways to point new editors to pertinent policies. We do, however, expect regular editors to be generally familiar with the basic policies and guidelines. Thus, if you have a concern with a regular editor, it's likely to be a more complicated situation that can't be addressed with a canned template.--Kubigula(talk)02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I can intellectually agree with Kubigula, I still feel that a couple of the templates (most notably {{uw-3rr}} and {{uw-warn}}) are valid for use on regulars ... especially since "regulars" has such a nebulous definition. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely true. Most of the templates on UTM are designed to be used with new editors, but a significant portion are appropriate for new users or regulars. If this keeps coming up, perhaps we should make an effort to delineate which are designed for new users.--Kubigula(talk)17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I agree with the first poster above. I don't agree with this objection to regulars being templated. Some templates may be for users unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and those wouldn't be appropriate for regulars in most cases, but that's not their only purpose. Notification templates, for example are clearly not meant to do anything but save an editor time. Like with a page being put up for deletion. Or, as I've noticed sometimes, people thanking folks for participation in an Request for Adminship. I doubt anybody really objects to that, and if they do, I'm sure folks would just say they're the ones being crotchety. Now where I see the problem is with warnings. And that's possibly because somebody did something wrong. Maybe it's the person who got templated, maybe it's the person doing the templating. How do we know? It'll depend on the circumstances, but I think it's just as likely for somebody to get offended if you send them a personal message rather than a template. I know a lot of people have made personal attacks or made uncivil comments and are completely unable to recognize it. The fact is, if you're offended by somebody expressing a concern about your behavior, it is best to reflect on it, and take a good honest look at your actions. It may be you've done nothing wrong. I know I've faced my share of frivolous accusations from folks who would rather attack me than stick to the content(and none of them ever used a template as far as I can recall), but it seems excessive to me to reject the use of templates at all. If there's a problem, it's more in the particulars than the general situation. So far as it goes though, I don't see any harm in distinguishing templates based on how appropriate they are for regulars versus new users. FrozenPurpleCube03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If UTM templates were only applicable to issues of straightforward vandalism, then this debate would not be taking place.
If you use templates for some editors and not for others in identical circumstances, how is it anything other than special treatment? Templates are warnings, but they also convey standardised messages. They are not a blot on status or some sort of non-redeemable demerit. How can their use on anyone be defended if they are considered to be so patronising?
Level 1 UTM Templates should offer a straightforward way of telling someone they have made a mistake. They should help avoid petty incivilities, they should make clear the fault, point to better practice and be phrased in such a way that whether this is your first edit or your ten thousandth, you recognise not that this is not some sort of damnation of all your efforts on Wikipedia, but that you have simply made a mistake.
Editors are human beings and not robots. Familiarity with policies and guidelines may mean that they produce a vast amount of really great work, but this does not exclude them from making mistakes.
Perhaps the point to consider is, if you are unable to tolerate the minor criticism implicit in a Level 1 template, should they really be used for anything other than straightforward blatant vandalisim? Mighty Antar23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is, how often does a regular editor make a mistake? Not very often. When you find that a regular has made a slip-up, it's not as though there's a million other regulars who are also churning out mistakes by the dozen. With that in mind, why is it so essential to just slap a template on their talk page and surf off in search of any other accidents? Major mistakes by regulars are fairly rare (at least, that's what I would have thought), so why rush? And if it's just a minor mistake, why tell them at all? Just correct it and leave it at that. If everyone told everyone that they'd corrected their spelling/grammar/punctuation mistake, we'd still be no more than the internet equivalent of an explanatory pamphlet. Templates are for those who need to crack down on vandals in a hurry, not for notifying regulars of a (probably) one-off mistake. CarrotMan06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be something wrong with piping the article a person edited in after using subst
To me, both Uw-bv and Uw-vandalism4im seem to accomplish the same task. They both give the vandal some sort of final warning (since uw-bv is single-issue and an editor is unlikely warn again after issuing Uw-vandalism4im) and let the vandal/personal attacker/etc. know that he/she will be blocked if he/she keeps vandalizing. Even though {{Uw-vandalism4im}} is not part of the single-issue user warning set, I believe the template fits that criteria because it's an only warning which bypasses the usual set of four vandalism warning templates. To me, it looks like {{uw-bv}} is just a wordy version of uw-vandalism4im with a slightly friendier intro "Welcome to Wikipedia". I think the content in uw-bv should be merged into Uw-vandalism4im. Comments? Hydrogen Iodide(HI!)01:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
adding "blankown" template?
In trying to find out what could be done about an editor who blanks their own talk page to hide recently-issued vandalism warnings, I discovered the {{blankown}} template. It seems to me that this belongs in this article (it is certainly a template intended for the "User talk" namespace) but I'm not sure where. Any suggestions? Even though blanking your own talk page is not technically considered vandalism it is still frowned upon, and I think it would be appropriate to add it to Single level warnings. Would like to hear feedback from others. Tim Pierce02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on several conversations here and at WT:UW, I am proposing two templates for addition to the UTM page. First, a warning template for misuse of blocking or warning templates - proposed text available here. Second, a warning template for inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries - proposed text available here. They are both designed to be usable as level one/AGF warnings, though neither has the "welcome to Wikipedia" language - so they can be used after another message or warning.
I know there is some concern about template creep, or excessive numbers of warning templates, and I share that concern to a degree. However, there is a value in having specific templates available for situations where a more generic warning might not be sufficient to clarify the editing concern. I believe these templates would be useful additions to UTM, and there have been several requests for them.--Kubigula(talk)19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the idea of a template for edit summaries. However, I don't see the need for a template for improper warnings. If the warnings are used to vandalise, then use the uw-vandalism series on the user who falsely warned. If the warning was left in error, but in good faith, a friendly note works well. My 2 cents. Flyguy649talkcontribs20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. However, if you include the word "deceptive", the template's not really useable as a level one AGF warning. My own feeling is that it's worth having as a single use template, with follow-up by the regular vandalism warnings - we've made it clear to the vandal that we are on to his or her trick.--Kubigula(talk)03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Reported to Admin
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Article, you may be blocked from editing. Hersfold (talk/work) 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
, instead of this one: 
. - Super48 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
this one, personally the stop looks a bit bland, but depends what other think. Khukri 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
. - Super48 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Hdt83 Chat 04:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=icon}
? After all, the x has a transparent background, and SVG's really have no advantage considering that Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox render them as PNG's. What do you guys think? Springbob Squirepants 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Note - following rfc template nowikied, rfc should not be open on archived page. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)