Putting the warnings inside of message boxes, like we're doing, is what messes a lot of things up. Just to start off the long list of problems, almost all vandal fighting programs/scripts put the signature in the message, so a user's signature would show up twice, and programs like VandalProof that include a link to the diff would have the warning and the diff seperate, possible confusing a newbie who doesn't know what is/isn't vandalism. Does anyone agree? Iced Kola03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree it would be a problem; this was brought up and addressed above, please read the sections "IMPORTANT: Signatures" and "New template features".I think at this point it's at worst a minor nuisance, though there may be other stylistic concerns about the boxes. —Quarl(talk) 2006-12-30 04:19Z
This discussion has discussed whether to add the "uw-" prefix to all of our user warning templates. This is wanted because it would eliminate the confusion of users warning people with templates like test3, not knowing it's meaning was changed. No cons are seen. . Please help determine consenus below. Explanation optional.
As I said before, no good reason not to do this so both can exist at the same time (for a while before people use the better/newer templates universally). JoeSmackTalk02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This new proposal doesn't explain why any change is actually needed. It needs clarification and rewording before I can consider it. - Mgm|(talk)13:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you objecting to the uw- prefix or the overall changes? —Quarl(talk) 2007-01-02 13:07Z
Comments
Comment: can you explain further what the problem is with keeping them the way they are now?Unless I'm not fully understanding the situation, I would definitely oppose this change. -- Renesis (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the straw poll, it gives a piped link saying this discussion. (It didn't work before because I hit the number sign instead of the pipe character) --TeckWizTalkContribs@21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but since I wasn't involved in the discussion, I don't really understand why we have a problem.I understand this change was discussed, but what is the problem in the first place? -- Renesis (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two problems that I see. The first is that someone the has been on Wikibreak, or just hasn't read a page saying it, may not know that the warning levels and templates have changed. An example would know be that according to the overview plan, the test templates will be for actual tests (can I type here?) only, not vandalism also, which is how it's used now. Instead we'll have vandalism template. The second problem is that some template may be confused for things belonging elseware, like someone wanting to put on an article a tag the says it may contain POV. They may not like the POV template, so they would assume POV2 is another POV template, where it's really a warning template. --TeckWizTalkContribs@21:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
But the name should be relevant, related, and easy. If there were non user warning templates at Template:pov and Template:npov, what would you name it. --TeckWizTalkContribs@23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to think about it, but this should absolutely not be justification for prefixing all templates with uw-.Programmers have to deal with naming conflicts all the time, but it doesn't mean you create a new namespace every time you find a conflict. -- Renesis (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that namespacing shouldn't be thrown around carelessly, but in this situation I think namespacing is appropriate, for "official" warnings.Compare the db- templates. —Quarl(talk) 2007-01-01 00:58Z
Yes, I agree that uw-vand and uw-defam would be fine, and also uw-notcens.They can all have lots of redirects of course so uw-vand2, uw-vandal2, uw-vandalism2 would all work; it's just a matter of which one is advertised as the mnemonic. —Quarl(talk) 2007-01-02 10:25Z
Also with your uw- idea (you're my hero ;) )it'll mean we are the only ones with templates in the area so won't get in anyone elses way. Also with this idea the existing re-directs become obsolete, well for the beginning anyway, until we want to phase out the old warnings. Khukri(talk . contribs)10:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It's to do with wikipedia capitalising first letters. Even when you click on the redlink in the overview table it will take you to a uppercase template page. If you look here even though you write {{test3}} it'll still take you to an upper case version. Khukri(talk . contribs)12:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If you're talking about the transclusion redlinks in the "What it makes" column, once the templates are filled with content they'll be transcluded and you won't see the name at all in the table. —Quarl(talk) 2007-01-02 12:53Z
Renesis13 changed the icon on the {{Templatesnotice}} to the new design, which looks much better. So could everyone responsible for a template page update their pages to the new version. I'll do all mine and the base template, most probably after my wife has dragged me round the gardeening centre this afternoon. Khukri(talk . contribs)13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like it!I made this with the intention of making the UW templates look more uniform in appearance, and I may make a stop sign one when I have some time.One reason why I didn't replace this image anywhere besides the {{Templatesnotice}} is that I wasn't sure if the samples on the UW sandbox pages are actually indicating that the templates (level 0 and 1) will contain that image.Is that the case? -- Renesis (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
All taken, only four to finish
Daniel & Ken's look almost finished so I think these can go up for review if you'd like to do that. Misza has just one level to complete. Teck I know you think it's not necessary, but humour me please ;), I've done the defamatories and I think your npa's can be along the same lines for the first two levels.... please........
Misza has moded the {{Templatesnotice}} and after Teck's question about the blocks I've created {{Blocksnotice}} to explain the parser functions on the additional texts and sig functions.
I think we can just go ahead with Quarl's uw- proposal. Now if this is the case, it means the redirects will not be needed in the short term. If you all think it would be helpful I therefore suggest we copy all our templates over to their respective individual pages, and this means we can use the page on my sandbox to create a more complete review. Thoughts please? Khukri(talk . contribs)21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets do it, i'm ready to start this. If you look at my contribs, you can see I drop a lot of user warnings on talk pages, and I'm excited to spin the wheels on the end product of the WikiProject. JoeSmackTalk21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Per this thread at the admin noticeboard, crz has created a new UW template for people who are "biting" newbies.My question is -- what process have we implemented for people to create new templates, and keep the project organized at the same time? Also, I have some time if there is anything I can do. -- Renesis (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This sort of warning comes into the one off type of warning, much like {{editsummary}}, {{Double redirect}}, etc. These warnings will be covered in the second phase of this project, where we look at everything else on [[Category:User_warning_templates]] and bring them together. Depending on if anyone objects in the next 48 hours or so, I think if you want something to do you can help me create all the new individual template pages, cutting and pasting the text in. Question for admins, do we delete the old grouped template pages, or just stuff them in a archive corner somewhere? If the outstanding templates are completed soon, I still see the third week in January as an optimistic date to go live with all these templates. Khukri(talk . contribs)22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I can do that.What is the process for that?Creating Template:Uw-spam0 and pasting the contents from the spam page into it?About the grouped template pages, if they are not historical, I'd think we can delete them. I can do this if you make a list of the ones that are ready to be deleted. -- Renesis (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The eternal question
OK it's already becoming obvious here that we are going to have language differences acorss our templates, I've already seen one that uses both types of English. WP:MOS just states that the language should be either dependant on it's subject matter, or as a final recourse must stay in the language of the initial editor. Just to plagarise (notice no Z) Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages.
What I would like to suggest is that we add to our mandate that all templates are written in X or Y. I think looking at the work that you all do round here that most of you will be above the language issue but I think it would be good to have continuity throughout the project as I can't stand seeing Vandalise on one template and Vandalize on another. So I'll start
British English, as it's spoken across the whole of the Commonwealth (with the exception of Canada - 53 different nations), and is the form most commonly taught in countries where English is not the mother language. In the interests of worldwide accessibility (and not just the fact that I'm British - honest!), I feel British English is the form we should use. ShakingSpirittalk13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral i would say whatever they do now in all the old templates; i never even stopped to notice, but that seems best. JoeSmackTalk13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Change levels from 0 - 3 to 1 - 4
I think Physicq210 and Titoxd are on to something with changeing the levels from 0 -> 3 to 1 -> 4. I suggest when we put the templates into their respective pages we just increment the levels by 1. Let me know all what you think?
As I said above in the redirect thread, I think there is merit for both 0 and 1 level warnings.They are both "entry-level" warnings, with level 0 being a warning where they most likely meant no harm or were trying to be helpful (like '''Bold text''' or an external/spam link that was inappropriate but put in by someone trying to help), and level 1 being a first warning for somebody who's edits were less likely in good faith (I.E., someone who is new to Wikipedia and doesn't mean great harm, but thinks it's funny to put "Joe is dumb!" or someone who is trying to point traffic to their website). -- Renesis (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think it safe to say we can go ahead now, I'll finish off the npa warnings tomorrow evening most probably. Then we can copy all the rest of the warnings over to their respective templates pages. I also think we should use level 1 - 4 now as already mentioned. If someone has some time, I'm a wee bit busy at the mo, would they mind copying my sandbox page to the overview page but incrementing all warnings by 1. If not no problems I'll do it tomorrow evening. If anyone does do it, also please add a note to the top of the page saying these templates are only for review and are not to be used at the moment. Almost there, at last ...... Khukri(talk . contribs)23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, why was the vandalism 3 template already created? Second, didn't we agree to change stuff like vandalism3 to vand3?
Because it was one I created for a test if that's OK? As for vand and defam there was only Quarl who responded I think. But as was also mentioned we can create {{uw-vandalism3}} but have a redirect from {{uw-vand3}} if necessary. Khukri(talk . contribs)05:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Right all done, I've created all of the individual template pages, and created the new overview page which will be the base for the remplacement WP:UTM page. Would one of our admins be so kind as to delete the old template pages which we used to start off please. I moved the old overview page over to my sandbox and the links can be found there.
OK I've done my piece for a wee while, I'm going to be busy back at work over the next couple of weeks, so won't be able to devote as much time to the project. Would someone please take care of the publicity campaign, to announce the upcoming changes please? I'll be keeping an eye out so any questions I'll try to respond. Thanks to all those who have done the template work and helped out. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)21:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
After I went back and read the text of the messages, I support this change.However, I am a little concerned at the now-absence of 0 level templates -- previously, they had been a mix between a welcome message and a warning, something which was useful because (as I said above) some users (particularly those adding inappropriately links and becoming candidates for the {{spam}} template) were actually attempting to improve the article, and a warning (even a level 1) seemed a bit harsh or cold.Can we add a provision for these for some of the template types? -- Renesis (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Had originally forseen amalgamating npa and civil under a global fits all template. Mainly because civil didn't have the full spectrum of warnings and could be incorporated quite easily within.Khukri(talk . contribs)21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The view seems to be that boilerplate is not appropriate for civility reminders. The civility template was recently deleted on TfD.--Docg15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Using a template to remind someone to be civil is, in fact, an act of incivility as well.Especial when they get overused in retaliation during a dispute (like so often happens). ---J.S(T/C/WRE) 23:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
A Change of Notices Message
If anyone doesn't want to take the time to write their own message, the one below is the I left at Wikipedia talk:Recent changes patrol. It basically says the important stuff. Feel free to change it:
Though the following isn't effective yet, please read the following:
Wikiproject user warnings has been working to redo all templates. Originally, plans were to slowly insert these, so people would know that the warnings had changed. However, this was thought to be bad, so all of the new templates of the project have a " uw- " in front of them. Another advantage of the prefix was so that the user warning template wouldn't get confused with something else (ie. a POV template for an article page and a POV template for a user talk page of a user who's inserting POV). This means that the old templates will still work as normal. However, these new templates are more organized. Level 0 has been eliminated, and the levels now go from 1-4. In addition, block templates are organized differently. All new templates automatically insert your signature, and all templates are completely lower-cased. An important note is that the new test templates are not blockable, as they are only for tests (i.e. can I really type here?). Things that test was previously used for, like vandalism, now have their own templates. The templates are currently on review until Jan. 22. For the complete list of templates, see Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview. --TeckWizTalkContribs@21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that this template was a placeholder. I edited it (even if I still feel it is a bit too long), don't hesitate to review and correct it! -- lucasbfrtalk12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Feedback
I pasted the boilerplate request for feedback (I've noticed you recently used a template, etc.) provided by Khukri on BlankVerse's talk page. This was posted on my talk page as a result, moving here where the project can actually see it. KillerChihuahua?!?12:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-Begin pasted post-
I'm not sure why you asked for me to look at the 'discussion' on the new user templates.
I looked at the new designs shown here, and in my personal opinion, they are ugly as hell, as well as looking very impersonal and in-your-face. IMHO, for those problem editors who might be turned around into good contributors, the new versions will be much more likely turn them over to the dark side.
On the other hand, it looks like a small group of editors has been quietly working at the redesigns for months and they've already made up their mind, so my voice isn't going to change the current direction. Therefore, I see no reason to get involved. I'll predict, however, that when WP:UW tries to deprecate the numerous existing user warning templates that there will be tremendous resistance. I will NEVER use the new, very ugly, boxed (with extraneous graphics) user warning templates. BlankVerse12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-End pasted post-
I can understand in some respect their sentiment, but these are the warning templates and I think we make ourselves look a bit unprofessional, for want of a better word, if we have frivolous images and colours plastered over warning templates. Once we go past the good faith warning which is the only one I would say has any need to be pleasing to the eye, then IMHO an editor is not going to be swayed by whether we dished out pretty warnings or not, but by the content or until they receive a block. However, I can see the single issue templates being slightly more aesthetic and pleasing to the eye.
I object to someone saying we've been quitely getting on with this, when I think I've most probably got up the nose of alot of admins and longterm editors going on about this, we've been at this now since the beginning of October with posting on most of the major notice boards.
Ugly as hell does not give us anything to go by, if you compare the {{test1}} warning to the {{uw-test1}} warnings or {{uw-vandalism1}} warnings, there's minor text change, it's boxed and there a standard image. If uglyness is denoted by one image and box when we look at the plethora of different formats, boxing, images on current templates then I think we're doomed to just creating another fragmented system, as editors create their pink fluffy boxes because they don't like a standard.
If he/she had analysed this project, then they would see we have had editors come in here with suggestions and we are open to suggestions. Now is the time to come up with suggestion whilst we are in the review period, it's not too late to change anything. But to have a dummy spit after the horse has bolted is fruitless and to talk of in digging heels now before we have even gone live is not productive. So in short, this project isn't here for me or any of the other editors on this project it's for the community. If you want to change something, change it but do it to all of the them. I know we are going to have as Quarl mentioned Bikeshed problems once it's gone live, but this project doesn't stop on the 22nd January, it's a work in progress, we've created a foundation take it and let it evolve, but I repeat, do your changes to all of the templates. If someone isn't happy, ask them to make suggestions, don't just criticise. We're not Wiki-luddites unwilling to see changes......... honest Khukri(talk . contribs)13:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the style used on the table at here distorted their actual appearance, adding extra boxes around all of the tables. I changed the table to show the correct appearance. -- kenb215talk14:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks better now, I too hope that we can sell this. Also I'm really serious though and with you saying about being WP:BOLD I don't want anyone to think that this is only for us and they have to obey our rules. This is for everyone, anyone gets any criticism like the puppies please send them here to give their suggestions or ideas. Khukri(talk . contribs)16:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the size issue with the table. The problem was just with a fixed size style used in the first line of the table. -- kenb215talk03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The templates look much better without the boxes. I still say that except for the final warning templates, that the graphics are extraneous and distracting. BlankVerse11:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Minor copyediting
Nothing major, just a quick log of little changes I've made to the templates - some of these may be based on what I think "reads better", so if you disagree with a change please reply here and/or revert it ^_^
{{uw-vandalism1}} - "However, unconstructive edits, as you did to Article, are considered to be vandalism." -> "However, unconstructive edits, as you made to Article, are considered to be vandalism."
{{uw-block3}} - "...including an explanation why you feel the block should be removed." -> "...including an explanation for why you feel the block should be removed."
{{uw-test1}} - "Thank you for experimenting with, the page Article on Wikipedia." -> "Thank you for experimenting with the page Article on Wikipedia."
{{uw-test3}} - "It is considered vandalism which under Wikipedia guidelines can lead to blocks being applied." -> "It is considered vandalism which, under Wikipedia guidelines, can lead to blocks being applied."
{{uw-tpv2}} - "Please do not introduce some form of vandalism to the userpages of other users." -> "Please do not introduce any form of vandalism to the userpages of other users."
{{uw-agf1}} - "However, we must insist that you assume good faith whilst interacting with other editors, which you did not do here,Article." -> "However, we must insist that you assume good faith whilst interacting with other editors, which you did not onArticle."
(Same change made to agf2 and agf3 aswell. I noticed the same format being used on the npa templates too, which I haven't changed - does anyone else agree that my form is more readable, or is it just personal bias?)
{{uw-defamatory1}} - "However, your recent edits , to Article have been reverted" -> "However, your recent edits to Article have been reverted"
{{uw-defamatory2}} - "Please do not add defamatory content, as you did to Article, to Wikipedia." -> "Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Article."
{{uw-joke2}} - "Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do seriously here." -> "Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously."
Can anyone sort out the parser on {{uw-image1}} it will only put a space in if there is a comma after the pipe i.e. 1|}}}|, into [[:{{{1 but then the english reads rubbish. Khukri(talk . contribs)20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
OK we'll give it a try as you're the second who's not keen on the boxes.
Just so it can be mass undone by anyone, use AWB find background-color:#F8FCFF; and replace with background:#FFF; border:1px solid #AAA;
Like or dislike everyone? One thought though is that if people use different skins then it'll be messy, unless the background can be made transparent? Khukri(talk . contribs)19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
We ought to set up a template so these can all be changed at once.I'd be happy to do so if you are fine with the idea. -- Renesis (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Knock yourself out, so long as we aren't creating a rod for our own back by making these things way too complex. Anyway what do you prefer, boxes or none? Khukri(talk . contribs)20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Without knowing how they will look once on a user's talk page, I prefer the boxes.However, signatures would be easier without the boxes (how did we solve that, anyway?) -- Renesis (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what I'll give you a warning on your talk page, then we can have an idea how it looks . Misza parsered the sig into the box, and if you look at {{Templatesnotice}} shows how you can disable it. Khukri(talk . contribs)21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been dropping spam ones off on usertalk's, and i've noticed it makes it hard to distinguish from the standard IP boilerplate when they both have the same border/box style. Most things on usertalks are text w/o the border, so it's easy to gloss over the bordered warning templates when they are close to the IP thing. JoeSmackTalk21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but I think the question to be answered with this box questions is are they ugly, or do they make the warnings stand out from the usual background chat, etc. The IP templates are quite tidy anyway, but talkpage headers will come next in the single issue templates, and this might be the time to see how we differentiate between the two. We have the images so maybe that suffices, I dunno. Think we need lots of input on this now. To be honest to me they look good both ways, and maybe we can put some form of page break between a header template and the actual chat. Khukri(talk . contribs)21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been noticing the new borderless version of the spam warnings, and I have to say I like em better. The icon in front of each draws more than enough attention to the eye alone w/o the border. My 2cents. JoeSmackTalk05:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think neither borders nor icons are useful. The new messages banner draws sufficient attention to the messages, and a user who deliberately ignores normal messages will not pay more attention if they have common icons beside them. I've missed quite a bit in the time I was away; what happened to the discussion at /Archives/2006#Images? It seems the images just went into use regardless. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have made a template for this: {{uw}}.The template page shows the possible parameters, and I think Khukri is going to try to do a semi-automated replacement for all the templates. -- Renesis (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
{{uw}} breaks lists because the wikiML table syntax contains line breaks. Some possible solutions are [a] use HTML table syntax, or [b] remove or scale down the icons so a table isn't necessary (as is done with {{s/block}}). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Appearance when used
I put some of these templates on my sandbox to see what they look like when they are actually used. The layout I used is the one recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings#Layout Guidelines. They don't seem to number or bullet as expected. Also, the extra text that can be added doesn't stand out, and thus won't usually be seen by someone experienced glancing through the templates. Comments? -- kenb215talk01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
{{uw}} breaks lists because the wikiML table syntax contains line breaks. See 'Suggestion' above. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets just put a handbrake on the uw template until the layout guidelines are satisfied. Could someone take this as priority, as we're to put it bluntly a bit buggered, if we can't get this to work. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)08:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This will be a non-issue if we decide not to use icons everywhere, since there will be no need for a table at all. See 'Icons in general' below (or above, depending how it's archived). —{admin} Pathoschild 08:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I personally like the idea of icons, at least for the first and last levels. The message looks more professional with the information icon in my opinion (and is more friendly IMHO). for levels 2 and 3 I have no opinion (I like it but I don't think they are that useful) -- lucasbfrtalk09:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know enough to know if it's the icons or something else about the warnings, but the current format does indeed bugger the number and bullet layout. That's not good. --Geniac14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
New Stop icon
I finally created a new stop hand icon to match the others.I placed it in the {{uw}} template, so when we convert all the other templates, they will be using the new icons.The uw-vandalism and uw-block templates are already converted. -- Renesis (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
template proposal
{{template_to_much}} - "You have been identified as using too many boilerplate templates. Continuing to do so can be seen as disruptive, biting the newcomers and incivil.Please don't make wikipedia look like a ridiculous bureaucratic police state by over-using templates on the talk pages of established editors."
I think it's could have irony on so many levels, creating a template for the express use of saying
Hey you're dishing out too many templates. Seriously though, this sort of message would come under single issue templates, which we will be looking at shortly. Currently we have removed some ambiguity in the multi level warnings by cutting the number of templates almost in half to cover the same warnings. I have no doubt we will do something similar for the single issue templates, and this could be included in a general conduct template of sorts. Keep an eye out in the near future. Khukri(talk . contribs)22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I was actually trying to be sarcastic. :)It was just a commentary on the shear amount of boilerplate speech on wikipedia in general.Oh well. I don't gotta like it to understand it.
Just don't lose touch with the human on the other end of the nickname or IP address.Impersonal messages have much less impact then a personalised message, and, in the end might serve to turn potential converts away from the project. But do we really have time to personal address every random drive-by vandal? Not really I guess. So whats the solution? Whats the happy middle ground between perfection and impersonal bureaucracy? I have no idea. ---J.S(T/C/WRE) 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
A main reason this project was started was to reduce the amount of templates/boilerplates used out there so people didn't get all confused over what the hell this one template is trying to tell me, and at what level. JoeSmackTalk23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Why does no one like the new icons?I realize I'm too close to the issue to give an unbiased opinion, but the entire reason I made the two new ones was to make the set more consistent, along with giving a cleaner look.The old ones, to me, just look dated.Compare the two...
I wouldn't worry about it, I prefer them, but if people want their old logo's just upload it as a different name. If our current icon problems get resolved then we'll use yours. Khukri(talk . contribs)22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the usage of the new-look stop-hand icon. It's a bit too bright, whereas the old one was clean and understated:
same for [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg]]. I preferred the SVG on MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext as it looked better. PNG replacement of SVG isn't always a good thing. However, the new versions could be uploaded, but as ImageName(1).svg, the 1 denoting it's a copy. --SunStar Nettalk23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I have designed the icons using shapes and gradients (not drawing) so I can easily convert them to SVG, which I am planning to do... when I figure out how! -- Renesis (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled across this, and looking at your lovely neat table of templates... I'm amazed. This rocks. I've taken the liberty of moving a few commas to make them show up correctly, I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. This is some great work, if a lowly user like myself can say so :-) Rawling22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Aaaand they're under review. My bad. I only used one. I guess I'll just keep watch on this project until it goes mainstream. Rawling22:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. The main reason for that message is just to let people know that the templates are still in the process of being made by a group. It's no real harm if they are used, we just would like to have them all finished first. -- kenb215talk05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
User/talk page vandalism templates
As I've said (just above) this project looks like it's going amazingly well. I'm concerned about one set of templates; the User/talk page vandalism set. The templates themselves, uw-tpv1 through 3, refer solely to Userpage vandalism, so they're not appropriate for use on Talk page vandalism. I would have expected uw-tpv templates to be for Talk page vandalism, and there to be another set uw-upv for Userpage vandalism. Rawling23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the perceived differentiation between the talk page and the user page vandalism on Wikipedia. Talk page commentary seems to be allowed so long as it's not personal attack, uncivil, defamatroy, etc. But a user page is seen to be sacrosanct. However I think you have raised a valid point in this regard in that it's the user page we focus on and as such the warning should be UPV. Thank you for your comments and appreciation above. We are more than likely to be having some major changes in the next week before we go live. But if you wish to join the project please, sign up and make your first project the migration of TPV to UPV warnings and get the old one deleted. They're my templates, so knock yourself out. If you have any further question don't hesitate to get in contact. Khukri(talk . contribs)00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've migrated the various tpv templates to upv, I think I've done it properly, and I've updated the table on the overview page. However I'm not going to request deletion of the old templates in case we need some tpv warnings for people breaking talk page guidelines. Rawling10:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, having thought on it, maybe we should think about the 3rd level warning just being a straight {{vandalism3}} and make the tpv & upv be non-blockable. Only a suggestion as otherwise it's good and follows what we are trying to set out here. Khukri(talk . contribs)21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've made the templates, so I'll leave the decisions as to which ones to use where up to the guys in charge around here :) Rawling21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh, cancel that. I didn't think we were deciding policy here, just designing some nifty templates. What exactly does this project deciding to make Talk- and User-page vandalism non-blockable mean? I would have thought either practice would be blockable if performed repeatedly despite being warned against it. Rawling22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, I didn't check before I left the message, the tpv/upv warnings weren't directly blockable anyway. Yes you're right the act itself should be blockable, but by the time we've got to a fourth level warning there's no point in having a specific warning for each of these and we just treat it for what it is. We give them a final warning for vandalism, hence the use {{uw-vandalism4}} on the table. Khukri(talk . contribs)17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I would ask on the IRC spam channel if they use this much. I wouldn't worry about TfD'ing it for now. Once we have done this whole project including the single issue warnings completed, if there is a need for it then we'll leave it for a while, try and incorporate it then TfD it with minimum fuss later on. Khukri(talk . contribs)21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Saw a new, under-development vandalism template and didn't know if it was apart of the project. {{vand3}}. If it is not, we may want to inform that user of this project but I wanted to check here first.--NMajdan•talk16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If you'd be so kind. Our {{uw-vandalism3}} meets all of their points and concerns and if we're to become the one stop shop for all user warnings then it's better they come through here first. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Adding negative information to a biog article is usually defamatory. But I would word it something along the lines of Please do not add unsourced negative comments or defamatory remarks to wikipedia, as you did to blah blah blah to cover both warnings. Khukri(talk . contribs)21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Icons in general
Icons
Neither borders nor icons are useful. The new messages banner draws sufficient attention to the messages, and a user who deliberately ignores normal messages will not pay more attention if they have ubiquitous icons beside them. Other users will easily find the warnings if they are placed in their own dated sections as recommended.
Whatever happened to the discussion at /Archives/2006#Images? It seems the icons just went into use regardless. The icons should only be used for higher-severity warnings, if at all. Ubiquitous images make the warnings unprofessional by giving pages an cluttered and overdone appearance. Further, they detract from what impact images have as they become common to any templated message. I think we should discuss this particular can of worms before we continue adding them everywhere. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 07:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all welcome back, I'll can get my coat now and leave it up to you. There was nothing malicious in putting the images in, it's just there was more people interested in having them than against it. But if that looks like it changes then delete away. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)07:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome and for your efforts; you're probably the hardest-working participant around. I didn't assume anything malicious in the reintroduction of the icons. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 08:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, I think the icons are usefull in that they quickly give the state of play of a user's talk page. A quick glance tells you whether s/he has been warned before and how seriously or whether s/he has been blocked. I think their use is more for the user coming to the page wondering which user warning to add, than it is for the user being warned. I have only just had a chnace to look at all this in detail. Congratulations, folks! A job well done. --Bduke11:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Telling where I user has been warning-wise by a quick glance like Bduke suggests is exactly what it is useful for. I think they are a valuable part of the new standardized warning system; regardless of if it is a spam level 3 or a NPOV 2 or a NPA 4, you have a common graphic metric to see what the deal is with an IP/user. Especially good if your memory ain't terrific on what each level of each template looks like in text (cause really I don't know a lot of em). Icons are simple, clear and helpful. JoeSmackTalk14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok lets try n keep all these feedback/icons discussions in one thread, reply to other comments above below here please as we'll start losing track of who said what.
As I see it, alot of members seem to be keen on the icons, but we're as the technical phrase has come to be known is buggered. We have two choices, that's unless one of you geniuses come up with a third option. First is we keep the icons, possibly usings Ren's{{uw}} template or we go back to how it was. But one of our more brighter members to come in and sort out the table/div's messup, so it follows the layout guidelines with bullets/numbering. Or we remove the icons which will remove the need for all the rest of the paraphernalia we've attached to it. I personally would like to see the icons stay, but if alot of people come out of the woodwork saying they don't like them or this problem isn't resolved before we go live, then I think we have no choice then to get rid of them. Unfortunately coding n programming is not my forte, so I have no idea how to get around it, but I really hope one of you can help out. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)17:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The icons are not necessary to find warnings if they are in the proper section as recommended (see below). They might be useful in a level four warning to emphasise that it is a final warning, but adding icons to all levels removes their impact without making them any easier to find.
In a recent mediation case, I learned that there seems to be widespread support for the idea that users are allowed to delete anything they want on their talk page. Since I believe in the principle of least astonishment, I feel strongly we should tell users, especially new users, that we don't want them to delete the templates. I wrote {{dontremovewarn}} for that purpose, but I'm aware it's much too wordy. Can we add something like that to every first time template?
(Other related discussions: I asked Is removewarn fair?, and was referred to the Centralized discussion, where I found a nice discussion about {{removewarn}}. I haven't read all of that page, so please point me to any pertinent discussion if I overlooked it.)
If, when adding a template to a talk page, you name that in the edit summary (Added {{uw-spam2}}.), then even if the user does delete the template itself, the fact of its having been there will remain in the page history, and anyone can then do a text-search (find "{{uw-") on the history to see... "Hmmm, this user got levels 0,1, and 2, so it's time for level 3." Since some users will delete warnings no matter what the rules say; and since page archiving may do the same quite innocently; and since (as you say) there's widespread support for the right to delete anything off one's own talk page -- going to the history seems safer, as long as the warnings show up in the summaries there. Unless you want to keep some central registry (somewhere else) of warnings given, which will rapidly become a huge list... or create a third standard user page just for warnings (User warn:SebastianHelm)... either of which would involve far more setup than using the already existing history function. -- Ben19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Noo!! Delete that redlink! Don't give people ideas - I'm so happy that it's still empty!
Seriously, though. I agree with you about the edit history - we should write something on top of template:TestTemplates or our new equivalent that tells people to use standardized summaries for that reason. Once we can rely on that, it shouldn't be too hard to create or extend a tool like wannabe_kate to collect such information. If I may spin that dream further: Ideally, everything could be done together with just two clicks:
Revert vandalism and display user's warning history;
Write appropriate warning with automatized summary, and block user if appliccable.
Back to the original topic, though: I still think we should inform users what our stance on deletion is. If we don't say so, then we specifically make those users look bad who deserve our good faith: the users who keep the unpleasant warning. — Sebastian20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but as long as the warnings are recorded someplace the user cannot delete -- whether that be a future delete-protected "Warnings" page that anyone can add to (via the "+"/"add comment" tab) but only admins can edit/delete, or the present page history whose entries only someone wih the Oversight authority can delete -- it will not matter whether the user deletes the talk page notice. Why create a rule, thus (when broken) a type of offense, which will require all the workload of monitoring and enforcement, when that isn't necessary if we take advantage of undeletable records? -- Ben11:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please reread my previous message. I said "I agree with you about the edit history". Why keep bringing up a point that we both agree "will not matter" (your italics)??
I find users who delete their warnings annoying, especially when using something like VandalProof, which will detect warnings on talk pages but will not search through edit histories.It just makes it easier on editors if people leave their warnings up so that others can decide what level warning to use next.I realize this is a controversial topic...Taking a leaf out of the old {{removewarn}} template, I designed a set of new templates with the level system, there on my sandbox page User:Sbrools/Sandbox.The wording is designed so that it does not automatically assume that a user is trying to cover up past vandalism, but also informs them that removing warnings is frowned upon without a legitimate reason.I'm not sure that it's a serious enough offense to block someone, but I tried to follow the other templates in that regard... --Sbrools(talk . contribs)19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we should start looking at a merge of this project in the near future with the above, we already have our overview page which in part will cover WP:TT, and will be completed by the single level templates in the near future. I'm also concerned that this project is titled user warnings, where as 'UTM - User template messages' covers everything, is better titled and conveys a more neutral standpoint. After Sebastien's points above about assume good faith and our perceived profile, I think it would be a good opportunity to move this project into a more neutral sounding territory. Also in my mind I see it as good time to finish this project and hand it over to the community. This is a work in progress but there has to come a time when it is no longer a project, and those who have worked on it to bring it to a live status and have set the standard, let go and take over a more janitorial role in it's up keep. I propose therefor that once the two phases (multi & single level warning) have gone live, that we wrap the work up here and transfer it, the instructions and guidelines over to WP:UTM or another location. I would be interested in you thoughts on this. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)13:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty to renumber one proposed template in the redirect-to list, from "notcensored2" to "notcensored1". Reasons: (a) the previous level is "notcensored0", and normally 1 follows 0; (b) template {{notcensored2}} exists and is different in both content and purpose (meant for posting on article talk pages). If for any reason this change is unacceptable, please let's discuss what to do instead. I had created "notcensored2" before discovering this project, and it is already transcluded on numerous talk pages, so replacing its content will require re-editing all those pages. If I'd known you intended to use that name, I would have chosen a different one. -- Ben17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that! As you can see, we decided to rename all our templates by adding "uw-" at the start, to prevent such collisions. I don't think we will make the redirections from the old system to the new one in a near future (I might be wrong I am not sure) -- lucasbfrtalk18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to fix the bullet/numbering thing -- how was it supposed to work? I don't see any # or * in the templates.Did I remove them? -- Renesis (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
erm ........ mmmmmmmmm ........ that'd might be me then. I think I forgot them amongst everything else I did with the merger of WP:UWLS, and it was the main reason I merged the two projects. Sorry guys. If you could sort it out Ren, that would be really appreciated. The guide is on the project page here. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how it can work with the tables (or anything) surrounding the message.Did it ever work? is the number outside the table?I'm a little confused here.Is the user entering the message supposed to put the #? -- Renesis (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the {{S/block}} then I think a table got added in side the div or something, to tidy the image up as it messed the text up. Then it got changed again as it was overkill having divs and tables, and I think they just got lost in the changes over the last 3 months. might need a complete re-think on behind the scenes structure. Khukri(talk . contribs)20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Using a small floated icon (or no icon at all) will fix the problem. {{s/block}} only uses a div container to create the coloured box. No container is necessary unless the icon is too big or the message too short. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just moved this section down to the bottom of that page to keep it in our minds, as it's very important. I've just been running some tests and to start I've changed Pathoschild's blocks back to the original divs used in the S/blocks warnings. I've also removed all div's and tables from my vandalism warnings. Now they are back to how they were at the beginning. I've put them on my sandbox which shows how they should look. What I've done is in the first group I've knocked the image size down to 25 pixels. As P mentioned above this hopefully removes the space that we were trying to get rid of in the first place between the first and second lines. If you look below you will see how it did look originally. It also includes the bullet/numbering convention. This is the last thing I can think of, no other ideas have come forward in the last few days. So if this is no good then we have one or two options, lose the images or lose the bullet/numbering. In the next couple of days I will modify the overview page so that it becomes the replacement page for WP:UTM and remove all the single issue templates from there and put them on a new page for the second part of this project. I ask for comments quite regularly and lucky if I get a couple. On this one I would really like some feedback and to know your thoughts on this last(ish) test. Cheers muchly Khukri(talk . contribs)19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Just my two cents, I did like the icons before (as they currently are on the overview page) but if that's screwing something up behind the scenes then obviously that's more important. The small icons are a step up from the large ones if they just go inline with the text, but it's not really the same effect. Whatever, I definately think we need something to distinguish these warnings from just plain text, but I don't really understand the workings behind these :p Rawling21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Just a random idea. If we like the idea of a small image in-line with the text, rather than a large one on one side, why not make it a longer, shorter rectangle - like a box with a word representing the icon, I'm not sure. Like the hand of ! icon could be replaced by "WARNING" on a little red rectangle. Just something to make the boxes stand out and to show what level they are at a glance, like the larger icons do in the current "buggered" version. Rawling21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Though a good idea, we wanted to use the images that have come to be almost a standard on Wikipedia. If these are unacceptable then I think we will have to go without icons. Khukri(talk . contribs)21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
COOOOEEEEEEEEEEE if I don't get anymore feedback, then I'm going to take it as an acceptance of no divs/table (except block) and a reduced sized image meets ours and the old WP:UWLS criteria. I have taken Monday off work and I will change all the templates then to what is decided. Then barring a meteor strike or Jimbo coming in and saying he shutting down wikipedia, with the work you lot are doing on the wording hopefully we can go live Monday evening (UTC). Khukri(talk . contribs)15:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking at the templates as seen at Overview#Details. I agree that no divs/table (except block) is good such as with the uw-vandalismX ones. Is the plan to have an auto-numbering # sign added to the rest? --Geniac16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this discussion to the bottom of the page again, just to keep it fresh in our minds. Right, since there were no disagreements over the last couple of days, as previously discussed I've changed all the templates to no div's/tables (except blocks) with a reduced sized image, and including the numbering system from warning layout. Some of you are going great guns at the minor re-wording and general tidying of the templates, so thank you for that. All that needs to be done between now and Monday is the continuing of this tidying, and the finishing of the single level warnings page, which I will do tonight or Monday. There are a couple of open tasks (top of page) if someone could look at them please. Also between now and Monday we need to have a final round of advertising of the changes. So if you could all please do a wee bit of spamming, noticeboards, IRC channels, the standard vandal patrollers we all know, that would be great. I suggest a roll out on Monday 18:00 UTC.
User:Krellis any chance you can do your 4th level block you were talking of? Anyhoo it's a weekend of Heineken cup rugby and my birthday, so I'm going to be fairly incommunicado this weekend. Any probs leave a glaring announcement. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I've hit a bit of an impasse as far as the block templates go.I had all kinds of good ideas in my head, but when I try to put them down in the actual templates, none of them seem to make sense.So, I think I've talked myself into being content with them as they are currently. —Krellis16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless someone screams stop across the top of the page, then I intend to go live with the overview page in around 9 hours. Lucas I see you are still editing, if you get a chance can you look at the couple of minor taks sitting up top. I will add the unblock text to the block warnings and create the single issue warnings table this morning and afternoon. Any other problems let me know. Khukri(talk . contribs)10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup I am reading the templates one last time. I corrected the faulty parser. If we can just agree on the level 1 templates I would say we are as ready as possible! ;) -- lucasbfrtalk10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added the single issue warnings, to the overview page. Just got to sort the text on the WP:UTM page, and create backups of all the old pages, in case anyone wishes to use them until everyone is 100% happy that we have the finished article. Going to split the WP:UTM page in two, once part for the overview grid and one which displays all the warnings. Knocking implementation back to 19:00 utc a couple of us are meeting in the #martinp23 IRC channel, just to talk through implementation, so jump in. Khukri(talk . contribs)17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe "in" is correct, "to" would probably also be correct, "on" doesn't sound right to me."On Wikipedia", yes, but "in Wikipedia articles". —Krellis16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
My guts tell me "in" would mean inside WP articles and "on" would mean about WP articles. But again, my English is not as good as I would like (errr... is that even correct??). -- lucasbfrtalk16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users should be cleared of all content except the block notice. This block notice should explain the block reason, or link to the block log which does so."
Doing this serves to, in some sense, destroy the list of things that explain why a user was blocked.For example, this edit. Perhaps it would be better to say that the block is moved to the top of the page? --Mdwyer05:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel the levels are a disimprovent over the current Template:TestTemplates. Currently, we have quite a clear list of levels like this:
Level:
0: New users
1: Factual note
2: Possible rule violation
3: Warning to stop
4: Final warning
5: Blocked
6: Block & severe warning
In the new uw- templates, the levels seem to have no other purpose than putting them in a sequence, which I regard as an unnecessary loss of clarity.
(I cheated a bit to adopt the rainbow texts to my ideal captions. I agree that there should be no distinction between "AGF" and "Factual note" levels.)
— Sebastian21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking at, say, the vandalism series of templates, levels 2-4 seem to fit with your 2-4 above; level 1 does seem to be a tradeoff between your levels 0 and 1 so it does seem that one level's been lost along the way. They are mostly consistent in the strength of language used across each level, though - I think it's unfair to say the levels are only there for the sake of having an order. Rawling485122:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all the nice coloured banner is about the only thing complete with the existing system, as almost every single type of warning is incomplete. It is not possible to guarantee that if you wish to issue a warning that the specific level will be available to you. I would suggest reading the talk page and archives for the complete evolution of this project as it's all explained there. But in short looking through the current warnings there is too much ambiguity within the first three levels and in most cases the actual wording itself does not correspond with it's actual category. With the new system we intend to create a system not just for a complete warning system, but that they are implemented in a certain manner. You're correct the main change is that the levels 0 & 1 and in some part level 2 have been merged in the new system to a assume good faith message then a no faith assumption level 2 message. I'm not sure how creating a complete set of incremental warnings and the fact they're in sequence removes clarity. Most of the support we have seen over the last few months is that there is little clarity in the exsiting system, except with the test warnings, which are almost the global panacea for every problem. This in itself does not give clarity to the warning messages, as the warnings themselves were originally forseen as for editing tests not blatant vandalism. Nowadays we see it being issued for ever type of infraction. On the top of the Overview page is the listing of what the levels actually mean. If the wording can be improved please feel free to get involved. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Systemic problems with the current levels
This refers to the following levels (from WP:UW/O)
Level 1 - Assumes good faith
Level 2 - No faith assumption
Level 3 - Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist
Level 4 - Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning
Thanks for both of your replies. I see that I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase:
The current levels are not used consistently
Of course, the old system (Template:TestTemplates) is not consistent; that's natural since it has grown organically without a plan. But the very chance of a new system is that we don't have to worry about legacy inconsistencies - so you would expect it to be free of them. Instead, my little research below (see #Do Level 1 templates AGF?) leads me to believe that the new system is already less consistent than the old one! To be frank, I'm appalled!
The inconsistencies are systemic
I see the reason for this in the wishy-washy definition of levels. The old system has by and by arrived at a list of some unmistakable, measurable criteria, such as as "Warning to stop". Why throw them out? From my experience with Template:TestTemplates, I would therefore propose the following levels with measurable criteria:
Level
Criterion
Explanation
0
addresses new users
contains "welcome"; assumes zero previous knowledge. AGF as a matter of course. Only to be used in special cases, such as {{summary}}.
1
Possible rule violation
No emotions or bad faith assumptions, just a short statement of what user did, and a reference to the policy/guideline if it is helpful. Mentioning "vandalism" is not helpful at this level - see Template talk:Warn.
2
Warning to stop
Must contain the word "stop". Alwas refers to something the user did more than once. Assumes bad faith, if necessary.
3
Final warning before block
States that user will be blocked next time
4
Block
(This may not be necessary since block itself is a separate category now.)
Please take this seriously, it is crucial for the new system to be built on a solid foundation. — Sebastian01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Purple text added or corrected 08:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC) and 08:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I find the level 0 / welcome level to be very confusing and non-intuitive.Are you welcoming a user or warning them?If you want to do both, do both, separately - use one of the generic welcome templates followed by a base level warning template.As long as the level 1 template used assumes good faith, this is not contradictory, and gets rid of the confusingly different level 0 templates that we have today.I've done this a number of times with the current system, and find it much less confusing than trying to remember/use all of the varying welcome-level templates that exist. —Krellis02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. You're right that we can do both separately. This is, BTW, the reason why I created {{welcomeshort}}; the rationale to make it short was so new users don't overlook the other message I wanted to send them. The one template that I still use frequently for newbies is {{summary}} because it explains everything with nice baby steps. So far I had success with it; everyone started writing summaries. — Sebastian04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The 0 - 3 or 1 to 4 warnings were discussed previously, I don't care which is used so long as we have a decision, which I thought we had. Why have the block as 5 and not 4? Having looked quickly through you have a fair point with the level 1 warnings in general that they need to assume more good faith. I responded a bit below but I think we should emphasise the 'Welcome but hey watch it' aspect 'What you did could be considered vandalism' across the board more. There's a whole reasoning in the archives about assuming too much good faith with vandalism by issuing test warnings. A test warning should be issued for what it is, an editing test. If it isn't an editing test then it's vandalism. But why have a vandalism level 1 I hear you cry. BecauseWP:BITE aside, I've personally issued with the old system a test 1 on a first time vandal who's left blatant vandalism of the John smells of poo variety and ended up in dialogue with editors, who have created logins and got positively stuck in. I think it's going to be difficult to go away from this 4 level system. One reason Pathos will jump in and tell you it's in the guidelines, and if we end up throwing this out at this late stage, then we might as well try and re-work the old system, with all that it entails. I'd be interested in reading up on your unmistakable, measurable criteria and please don't be appalled that's why we are having this review period to try and get experienced editors like yourself on board to get stuck in. The exisiting system isn't ideal but it's fit for purpose if you only want to give out test warnings. As has been said before what we are trying to create here is a foundation, but it need to develop. Look how long WP:TT has taken to get to it's current state. I personally feel it's a bit dramatic to be appalled by the overview's current state in comparison to the existing system, Rome wasn't built in a day. You've put yourself as active so please, get stuck in and reword away. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)15:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. If you think I'm just being dramatic, then I haven't gotten my point across. I feel if you build anything more complex than a tool shed, you need to start with a plan. Currently, our plan for the different levels is tantamount to an architect saying: "This house shall be big and have a nice roof." Distinctions between "stern" and "strong" are useless for definitions since everyone understands such subjective terms differently, depending on disposition and the local weather. At the very minimum, we should use the plan that WP:TT evolved to. Given that I already extracted such a plan out of WP:TT, I find it appalling that we go back to the stone age - planning without any measureable criterion.
I must qualify my statement. Since last week, some people kinda agreed that level 1 should mean "AGF", which is a measurable criterion. It was a very welcome side effect that many good people invested their time in making the level 1 templates friendlier. However, I don't think AGF is a useful criterion for the following two reasons: (1) There are exceptions already (uw-blockn). (2) We should always AGF where possible. If it's possible for a level 2 warning, why not do it? — Sebastian08:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I personally think all level1 templates (besides block) need to be AGF, but after being very nice at level1, level2 should be more neutral and factual (and level3 firmer) in my opinion. We are not in the legendary planet of Magrathea ("Please rest assured that this 2 months block is a special feature we reserve for our most challenging editors. We will be happy to have you back when the block expires.") (kidding ;)) -- lucasbfrtalk09:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The plan was simple really to take WP:TT fill in the blanks and removed the superfluous warnings. If you extracted a plan out of WP:TT then I'd say there were still some holes in it. I think your analogy of how we came up with the current overview system is a tad if not very insulting in comparison to the amount of work done here. Proposals were made and left for quite a while while we garnered support and opinion. In the same vein as I would like to see the unmistakable, measurable criteria and would love to see what plan was applied to WP:TT. The level 2 issue you mentioned above aside, what warnings do you feel are missing here, or what is not covered that exists in your plan for WP:TT. As I said before WP:TT is only fit for purpose if you wish to apply a test warning. A large portion of the texts that now fill the current warnings are based on the existing warning which we identified using the now defunct (ish) redirects page. I would currently say the overview is more complete than WP:TT has been. OK there are issues with some of the wording which you identified, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water eh? Please as I said previously you've made alot of suggetions but haven't really followed up on then, and others have tried to bring the level1 warnings up to scratch to your previous suggestions. Please and I mean it with all sincerity, get stuck into the templates and edit away, don't sit on the sideline. On your last point, if I have understood you correctly, IMHO the only way is which AGF comes into play with the block warnings is that is to those who have been hit by a collateral block, and that's should be made clear with the unblock statement. Normally they should have had 3 or 4 warnings prior to receiving the block, and should have had a fair dose of AGF. I should maybe remove the blocks out of that table. Even though I do agree with WP:BITE, I do however feel that in reality this is a warning system we are re-creating here, and as Lucas said above we can go overboard on sugar coating the warning. Also the onus is on the issuing editor to make an educated decision and apply the correct level warning to meet the level of offence. To finish I whole heartly believe the new system is covers a wider range, is intuitive and is more complete than the existing system. Yes there are bugs, and wording issue but not insurmountable ones I feel. Please get stuck in and make the changes, that you feel are necessary. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)10:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I see why you feel my post was insulting. It was indeed a bit my intention to stir you up when I felt that my concerns weren't heard. I sincerely hope I didn't go too far.
RE: Plan/no plan: I must admit, this is the way Wikipedia works overall; it's rather an ant heap than a building. I'm just a bit spoiled from my experience in the software industry.
Re: unmistakable, measurable criteria: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that you were waiting for me. I thought my table above contained such criteria - do you see that differently?
Re: "you've made alot of suggetions but haven't really followed up ...": I assume you're talking about the level 1 wordings. That was not my main point. My main point was that the levels are not well defined. Given that I keep repeating this point, I am frustrated that you still don't get it, when you order me to "edit away". Moreover, I am frustrated that you keep misunderstanding my point as "sugar coating". Nothing could be further from the truth! To the contrary: My point was principle of least astonishment.
I am really sad that you perceive my position as the "sideline". For me, having a plan is a central point of any endeavour, and I sincerely wish at least some others could see it that way. I admit, I could have lobbied harder for that, but please understand that I have other tasks, and I took an official wikibreak, and that I still have a problem that prevents me from working as effectively as I used to. And I already repeated myself without getting heard.
Re: Please get stuck in and make the changes, that you feel are necessary. I already did - see my table above of 01:08, 17 January. Unfortunately, I can not take it from there alone; this is a change that needs agreement with the group. I understand that it's late for that, and I would have loved to participate here sooner. But then again, I don't really think you tried very hard to get people on board. I have been on WP:TT for quite a while, and I did not notice a message that said: Please join this new project. That's another point where a bit of better planning would have helped a lot. — Sebastian22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry Sebastien you feel that your position is sidelined, that's was never my intention, this is a wiki after all and you have as much rights as I do. I did however not appreciate the negative aspect of some of your comments and if it was your intention to stir me up then I find that unfortunate, if that's what you think must be done to get to become involved. Also I'm sorry you do not feel well enough informed on this project. I've seen you contributions to WP:TT and would appreciate them here. We left message on the signpost, WP:UTM, the admin noticeboards, most of the main vandal tools talkpages, their respective IRC channels around end November mid December, as well as spamming well known recent change patrollers. It's clear with so many editors around not everyone was going to know what was going on and I'm sure editors will be able to name a million and one ways in which we could have better communicated this to the community, but best effort was applied. Anyway it's not too late, if you think the plan that was followed to create WP:TT was better please implement it on the new system. As I've said before they're not caste in stone, you have a plan, propose it, act on it or get others to do it, but get it done. Khukri(talk . contribs)23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice reply! I see now that you really did a good job in promoting the project, and it was unfair of me to hold it against you that there was no note on WP::TT. To be honest, I don't know if I would have thought of that myself! It's always so much easier to complain after the fact, and I certainly acknowledge your commitment! I also feel bad because I haven't been contributing very actively here lately; this is partly because there are so many topics on this page that I often don't see when someone replies, as happened today. Thanks also for your encouragement that it's not too late.
you have a plan, propose it: My plan is the table above (I just added and corrected a bit of text). Where would you propose it? Is there a better place than here? Could we hold a straw poll here? — Sebastian08:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Do Level 1 templates AGF?
This list shows my assessment of all templates currently listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview#Overview. That page defines level 1 as "Level 1 - Assumes good faith", so I wanted to know how well the templates fit that definition.
Speedy deletion of their favorite topic is for many newbies the biggest slap in the face they can imagine. Why would you want to do that to someone who acted in good faith?
uses "insist"; more severe than {{uw-agf2}}, which says "please"
The purpose of this list is not ad-hoc improvement of the individual templates. (For all I know, the other templates may be just as wrongly classified!) The purpose is to open my fellow project members' eyes to the fact that we have indeed a systemic problem here, which is my point in the previous section.
I don't think anybody could argue that assuming vandalism is assuming good faith. And it's not necessary or even helpful: There are several other reasons beyond WP:BITE why it's bad to talk of vandalism or similar bad faith actions right from the start - see Template talk:Warn for a discussion.
Seeing how many level 1 templates are at odds even with this simple requirement to AGF, I have serious doubts if the authors even thought about the meaning of the levels. My impression is that they rather just ligned up some variations of the warning message and gave them numbers in sequence. This is what I meant when I said "the levels seem to have no other purpose than putting them in a sequence, which I regard as an unnecessary loss of clarity". — Sebastian01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't there circumstances when it is absurd to assume good faith, though?For example, if an IP user adds "Red Sox suck, Yankees rule!" to Boston Red Sox, and they don't have any past warning history, what is an appropriate warning?Under the current system, it seems strongly encouraged to use {{test1}}, but, to be honest, I feel stupid every time I apply that template in a circumstance like that.Why should we say "thank you for experimenting" when it is clear vandalism?I think that is actually the biggest confusion in the whole concept of warning templates on Wikipedia, at least in my mind - what is and is not vandalism?If this project is going to succeed, I think the difference between when to use test(n) vs. when to use vandalism(n) is going to need to be much more clearly defined than it currently is. — Krellis — continues after insertion below
I agree that there are such circumstances, and that the "Yankees rule" grafitti is a good example for that, even though it's true and therefore encyclopedic . But I disagree that this distinction is essential. I only brought it up above in order to prove my point that people don't think about the level definition when they write templates. I think, AGF should be in any template as far as possible; it should not be a distinguishing criterium because it's highly subjective, and I have seen LOTS of fights about just that question. Why not just write: "Your edit does not fit into an encyclopedia", without the blame game? — Sebastian04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I knew someone would have to be a smart-ass if I used the Red Sox example ;)Seriously, though, I think I see your point.I'm going to take a hack at the vandalism(n) templates (at least probably 1 and 2) and try to do to them what I did to error1/2.I won't get to it right away, but probably at some point later today.I'll see if I can strike a balance between the fallacy of saying "thank you for experimenting" and the accusatory tone of "don't vandalize". —Krellis15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem with that, under the current set of available templates, is that there is no vandalism(n), there are just {{vw}} and {{bv}}.The creation of vandalism(n) here is, I think, a positive step.In the process of getting these new templates accepted by the community, though, we are going to have to define the difference I mentioned above.Just to run down a few possible scenarios:
Adding "poop", "fart", curse words, etc to an article.
Adding total gibberish to an article.
Removing content from an article with no explanation.
Blanking an article entirely.
Adding obviously derogatory or insulting statements to an article.
Adding NPOV information to an article.
There are, of course, many more types of scenarios, those are just the ones I can think of off-hand.Of those, numbers 1 and 5 are, to me, clearly vandalism, and thus AGF does not apply, while the other three can certainly have some assumption of good faith.To address your specific concern of the overview table indicating that level 1 should always be assuming good faith, I would suggest that certain types of warning inherently need not do so (particularly vandalism and blocking - if you're blocking, obviously there's no assumption of good faith), so they should either be in a separate table or have a footnote explaining that the levels may not directly apply to those particular items.As long as it's understood that those items are only used when bad faith is already evident, I don't think this is really a problem.I do see a problem, though, with how many templates you've called out as not assuming good faith in level 1, and I'll take a look through them tonight and see if I can suggest some ways to soften them a little bit.—Krellis02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've edited {{uw-error1}} and {{uw-error2}} to try and bring them more in line with what you've described as a more gradual set of warnings - take a look and let me know if that's a better assumption of good faith.And everyone else is welcome to comment on my changes as well.I think they still get the message across, without nearly as much assumption of bad faith.—Krellis03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply in detail later on, but just a couple of points (well points of view) block1 must assume abuse, they've just been blocked, we don't block people on good faith ;). I don't think we are assuming bad faith with the level 1 warning, it should be read as, What you did isn't acceptable, but we'll let you off this time, but in future it could be considered as .... Even with the good faith warnings, you can tell people of the rules and that they are in breach of them, whether they did it intentionally or not and without tearing a strip of them. But it's the wording these could be considered. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)09:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But do we, in fact, block people we believe to be editing in good faith sometimes?I'm not an admin, but I can imagine the following scenario:
IP user 1.2.3.4 is merrily editing pages.Some of their edits look legit, while others are obviously non-vandalism tests (sticking example images in, "Italic text here" and the like).They are warned several times about this over a short period, but do not stop.I think WP:AGF still applies here - after all, perhaps they did not see the "you have new messages" box (I don't quite know how they could miss it, but we have to assume it's possible).At the same time, their edits are clearly disruptive and detrimental to the encyclopedia, so a block makes sense.If we have a level 1 block template that assumes good faith, it stands a much better chance of helping this user understand what they did wrong than a template that simply says they were abusing their editing privileges.At the very least, I think {{uw-block1}} should be a bit more wordy and include some of the standard level 1 thank you / please language, perhaps even an apology for needing to block them.As it currently stands, {{uw-block2}} is virtually identical to block1, and that seems inappropriate, I have to agree with Sebastian.Also, why is there no {{uw-block4}}?I would propose that block1 be softened, block2 stay mostly as it is, maybe a little softening, block3 move to block4, and a middle-of-the-road block3 be created.If there was some discussion in the archives about block4, please point me to it, because I don't see it. —Krellis16:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Only problem with that scenario is as you say they would have to have missed three possibly four other warnings, prior to receiving the block. If you look at the non parsered warning, the second level is you have been blocked for repeated offence. However, others might but I certainly have no problems if you wish to try and create a 4 level system for the blocks as well. In short knock your selfout. Khukri(talk . contribs)18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The way I look at it, the level of block is based on how many times you've gone through a sequence of other warnings.So an example might be to go through a sequence like: test1, test2, test3, vand4, block1; a few days (or weeks) later, vand1, vand2, vand3, vand4, block2; another few weeks later, error1, test2, vand3, vand4, block3; etc.Obviously the entire four-warning sequence probably wouldn't happen on the latter infractions, particularly if it was blatant vandalism.But basically, I envision that the level of the block message would increase with each blocking, not each warning.It probably doesn't map perfectly, and I would expect that there would be plenty of times when starting with block1 doesn't make sense, but I think it does make sense for it to exist and try to AGF a little more than it currently does.I'll give it a shot in a little while. —Krellis19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
the Vand1 warning I just added to it the mention of vandalism otherwise it's no different to the test warning. I've just added my tuppence worth but edit away, I still think the in all thelevel1/ AGF warnings we should still mention what they possibly did wrong. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that it's the same as test1, even without a mention of vandalism.I agree with Sebastian's point - the very mention of vandalism could be seen as an assumption of bad faith.The wording (even without mentioning vandalism) is considerably stronger - it does not thank them for experimenting, and it refers to the edits as unhelpful and unconstructive, rather than a test.I guess I'm somewhat invested now, since I made those changes, but if anyone else wants to weigh in, that would be great. —Krellis19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the original templates and agree they were to strong to start with. But I think it assumes far too much good faith that we should skirt around telling them why we reverted their edits in the first place, and to not give details of their transgression. But I do feel that this can be done politely, and AGF. Yes we screw up as well, that's why I like the VP warnings that have a link to the reversion and says if you feel this is incorrect please get in contact with me. I'd rather see a link to the policy on why we reverted their warnings, but that's my personal preference, and will follow the concensus. In the best traditions of TV, lets ask the audience. What does everyone else out there think? Khukri(talk . contribs)19:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The wording of {{Uw-tpv1}} is a bit too strong indeed for someone who for example tried to reword someone's thoughts and did not know the policy. Maybe we could make it a bit more like {{uw-npov1}}? By the way I didn't follow what you meant about the be bold in npov1. (the idea in the original template was to not discourage the editors) -- lucasbfrtalk11:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair point it is quite strong. I haven't looked through all of Seb's points up above, but his AGF and creation points are certainly valid. If you have 15 mins, would you mind doing the honours, as I'm busy as at the mo? Khukri(talk . contribs)14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I am busy too that's why I went lazy and just wrote here about the problem. I see if I have the time tonight though! -- lucasbfrtalk15:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I toned down the language on {{Uw-tpv1}} a bit; it came from a pretty straight copy of the vandalism1 tag, so I can see how it started out too strong. Go ahead and edit them yourself if you wish :) Rawling485122:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Single level warnings
I've just started a list page here, for all the single level warnings that aren't covered by the overview page and will come into the second part of this project. There are some which have levels like the edit summaries and I would appreciate your thoughts on if we just create single warning for all of these or if any of them should be moved into the multiple warnings, such as edit summary, etc. Also add any that appear in [[Category:User warning templates]] or any special ones that you have stashed away somewhere, that you feel should be included. Khukri(talk . contribs)13:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Header & instructions
Hi there! I've been following this project with great interest on and off for the past few months. I'm not sure if what I'm going to write about has been addressed yet (because you've got a LOT of information here!) so I apologize in advance if I'm repeating an already settled topic.
On the project's front page, you say that these warnings will be grouped under a header called Warnings on the user's talk page. It is my feeling that wording is a bit strong and could be construed as a violation of WP:BITE. I've started using the more innocuous Regarding your edits in my own posts to user pages. I think including that or a similar phrase in the instructions for warnings would be the better course.
On the subject of instuctions, I'm hoping that you are writing a good set for the use of these new templates, especially as to how to apply them to anonymous IPs. I see abuse of the warning templates all the time especially towards anonymous IPs. Many's the time I've seen an IP w/out a warning in over a month and with good edits in the meantime, get blasted with a test3 or test4 for one vandalous edit. If an instruction set is not already written, I'd be happy to assist. Thank you for all the time and effort all of you have put into this project! --Elipongo(Talk|contribs)18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Even though in the last couple of days, we've tried to make some of the warnings more agf, etc, we can't lose sight of the fact that these are warnings. For a one off issue of a template, you wouldn't necessarily add a warnings heading, hence not coming into the realms of WP:BITE. But if you have a repeater IP address then I would recommend applying the heading. Just my take but if you feel it needs changing make a proposal and see waht everyone else thinks. As for the instruction, I'm hoping someone is going to offer to look after that one, so if you're looking for something to do ........:P. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The current layout guidelines seem like they could stand for some improvement. One simple change needed would be that, because numbering is included in the templates, it isn't needed as part of the layout. This can be fixed by just removing the #'s and *'s from the list (except for when used for comments, where #'s are still needed).
A better method of breaking up warning notices than by month is also probably needed. Separating them by month will cause problems when a user is warned from the end of one month into the beginning of another. Breaking them up by when a user was banned (and the sequence restarted) also wouldn't work if the user was banned for a short time, and continued as soon as the ban ended. -- kenb215talk03:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain what you mean by "warned from the end of one month into the beginning of another." ? --Geniac08:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless they were active through the changeover from one month to the other then I wouldn't see it as being an issue. Most vandals go from warnings 1 - 4in pretty short order till a block is applied, in that case the editor would just leave the warning grouped with the previous month. But if you wanted to correctly month it, then I'm sure the blocking admin will pick up fairly quickly whats going on. My opinion is that the monthing isn't an arbitary page sectioning, it's a recommendation to try and avoid the plethora of headers that are seen on repeater vandals page. I think the list on the front page just reflects that they're included in the template. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to be just on the same page, but in the same table, so I added a new column for my assessments, and one for the next editor. To the next editor: When you add a yourself, please insert your column before "next" and increment the colspan value. Lucas: I just noticed that the original colum you put there was not necessarily your opinion, but I don't want to delete it either. Please feel to adjust or rename the column to what you had in mind. — Sebastian06:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think all level one templates could do with a link to the welcome page in some form or other. Sometimes these warnings are given to newbies who simply made a mistake, and education about Wikipedia and how to edit it would be in order instead of simply a warning. (This includes {{Uw-npov1}}, {{Uw-joke1}}, etc. ) If no one objects, I will go ahead with this. Dar-Ape19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Most level 1 say "Welcome to ....." maybe the link can be put on the welcome? But yes good idea, though just make sure there aren't too many links on the template. Khukri - 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. I will add the links, and please let me know if you find any of my additions to be unfavorable. Dar-Ape22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Follow up: I chose not do add a link to {{Cv}} and {{Uw-3rr1}} since these are rarely the first warnings to be issued, and thus other templates will have already link to WP:I. Additionally, a link can always be added manually. However, feel free to add a link to the templates if you'd like. Dar-Ape22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Block templates...
I think the blocked templates need to be taken out of the "warning" table (and moved to it's own table).It's not really a big issue, but it seems out of place on so many levels. ---J.S(T/C/WRE) 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I don't even see why we need three of them. When I looked at them 2 days ago, level 1 and 2 were almost identical, and level 3 only differed in the duration. I think that could be easier expressed with a parameter for duration. — Sebastian01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I moved it out the other day. There needs to be at least two levels imho, but as you say there is a text string parser in the warnings so you can differentiate there. Again move it over to WP:UTM sure you'll get more concensus there. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)09:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Templates are now live.
The first phase of these templates went live today. Thank you all very much for your participation, assitance and time. However, we are not finished yet. These templates are not finished, they will still need re-work and if you could be on hand for any queries in WP:UTM that would be appreciated. I have created the single issue details but the templates all need to be harmonised in the same manner we did with the multi level warnings. Then we have to wrap this project up and merge it with WP:UTM. I am going to do some work on the single issues page and within a couple of weeks I will hope to create a new overview page. Again thanks for all your help, and if you see any problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khukri(talk . contribs)20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)…
Absolutely. Well done on all those new user warnings. I was starting to get seriously frustrated with the old ones. You folks deserve a gold star. :) --Brad Beattie(talk)20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to worry about the headers so much anymore, on a frequent vandals talk page it's best to groupd the warnings by month. This allows visiting or blocking admins to quickly make an assessment of what is going on. See here for further details. Khukri(talk . contribs)21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
hmm, rather strange, but I'll see what I can do. Also, in the template {{uw-npa1}}, the prosa seems rather strange: "However, we wanted to remind you not to attack the other editors, which you did not do here, Latrell Sprewell. " →AzaToth21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We had alot of discussion about this a few weeks back, and it was thought best to leave the old system as is and as time goes by, once know we know we've perfected the warnings, then we'll redirect at a future date, most probably around 6 weeks time. It was one of the main reason why we adopted the uw- prefix. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)21:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The numbering
I think the numbering may now work, as people will always put a blank linke after or before, so the result will be that there are countless of ones. I think it will be better to just use a bullet. Also, I'll add a IP notice also for IP-adresses, and that will also interfere. →AzaToth21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's going to be one of those things that editors will grow into, and it's written in the layout guidelines. Once we've finished the single issue templates then the intention is to shutdown this project and move all the documentation over to WP:UTM. But in the meantime it might be an idea to put a note on the WP:UTM front page. edit conflict Can you not add the IP notice as the 2nd function within the parser? Khukri(talk . contribs)21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about the header table, I would remove the Subst comment, it's on Template:Templatesnotice but is it necessary to for the page of a warned editor? However it's your code and the rest looks good. Also this project will be the place to come for now, but that will change in the coming months. cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I must be missing something. What exactly is the purpose of the numbers? Wouldn't {{uw-spam2}} always be level "2" and {{uw-npa3}} always be level "3"? Why don't we just number them in advance? -- Satori Son01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Warnings are numbered and block messages are bulleted. This makes it very easy to know when a user was blocked and how many warnings they have received since their last block. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm starting to sound obtuse, but I'm still not getting it. Why do we care about the total number of warnings of any kind that have been posted? Don't we just care about the last level warning given in the relevant category? For example, when I'm trying to decide whether to report someone to WP:AIV for vandalism, I need to confirm the user has specifically received a {{uw-vandalism4}} first, not whether they have received four previous warnings of any kind, right? Or do they all aggregate? -- Satori Son04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not defending having the list syntax in the template; I'm not sure when that happened, but either way is fine for me. The numbering organizes pages very neatly and legibly. For example, compare User_talk:195.92.168.163 before and after maintenance. —{admin} Pathoschild07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is that when after save of page, a blank line is added, so when a script is adding a new warning, it will always be a blank space between the previous warning and the next. This is nothing the script can fix, except always put the new warning on the same line as the last line, even if it's not a blank line. →AzaToth16:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Missing templates: bv and longterm4im
Thank you to all who have been doing such good work!I had have a question about the new look at WP:UTM, though.I'm probably just missing it, but is there still a template equivalent to {{bv}}?While I have not used this template extremely frequently, it is quite a good one to be able to use when the time is right, and I would be disappointed if it were not included in the next generation of warning templates.Dar-Ape22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well all's not lost ;), all of the original templates etill exist and will do for quite sometime yet. By all means add bv to the single templates table for now. Once the multi level warnings problems have died down in a couple of weeks then we intend to do the same to the single issue warnings, and I see no real reason if it's requiredand so long as it covers the umpteen variations of bv that we have create standard warning. This includes your longterm4im Aza. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh nice one that {{longterm4im}}. I assume you can replace it by one that has the same look and feel that the previous one. Or you can do something like {{subst:uw-vandalism4|Article|Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse.}} -- lucasbfrtalk09:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This looks like a good policy to me. As for the warnings themselves, it seems to me your three different levels could be mapped to our existing levels. The only problem I can see is "this is your only warning", but that seems only a cosmetic issue that could technically easily be solved with an optional parameter like "thisis=only" vs "thisis=last".— Sebastian01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio templates
Could the warning gurus take a second look at the text of the copyvio warnings. They currently say "your recent addition appears to be copyrighted text". Well, unless the information is public domain, of course it is - even if it's licensed under the GFDL or CC licences. This is OK. The second thing, as can be seen from the preceeding text, is that they are not useful for users who have added copyvio images. The templates tell the user to rewrite the images in their own words. -- zzuuzz(talk)03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
How about "your recent addition appears to be a copyright violation"? —{admin} Pathoschild 07:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be an elegant solution. Unfortunately though it seems {{uw-copyright1}} and {{uw-copyright2}} will need to be re-written more comprehensively. "we cannot accept copyright violations for legal reasons, as it is not compatible with the GFDL" doesn't really convey the intention of the notice, and "your contributions must be in your own words". I might get around to editing them, but they do need changing. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
When do we protect the templates?
Something that occurred to me: the templates are very likely to be a privileged target for real vandals, and should eventually be protected from editing. On the other hand, they are not set in stone (and are likely to get tweaked in the next days, considering the feedback we get) and protecting them might give the impression we don't want to discuss any change. What do you think? -- lucasbfrtalk09:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I would leave it for a wee while, as there are alot of us non admins, who wish to continue working on them. I'm not in favour of full protection as previously, as there are a number of us with them all on their watch list. But it's an necessary evil, I would maybe post it to the admins noticeboard as I know there was issues with template protection only recently. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs)19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The 'mos', 'notcensored', and 'unsourced' templates scale up to notification of an impending block for vandalism... but the WP:VAND policy lists all three as specifically not vandalism. Having these as 'warning' templates of any sort is IMO a very bad idea as it encourages users to toss them at each other as a form of harassment. The new template designs use a single very common image and link only to heavily linked policy pages... making it very difficult to track their use. However, the one case thus far where these templates have been used without substitution perfectly illustrates my point... see User talk:Episodiod. Four 'warnings' for a single set of perfectly reasonable edits to an article. It serves no purpose except to encourage people to insult each other rather than discussing the issues. In this case the 'delete' series was also being misapplied, but that's always been a problem when people mis-characterize any text removal they disagree with as 'malicious blanking'. The same is potentially true of the 'tpv' templates if they start being used to tell people that they can't remove comments from their user talk pages. The mos, notcensored, and unsourced templates refer to content dispute issues and ought to be directed to dispute resolution processes... not false threats of blocks for vandalism. Because they aren't vandalism. The 'delete' templates might benefit from being updated to indicate that removals which are clearly not malicious also are not vandalism and should be handled through dispute resolution. And the 'tpv' templates might want to specify that they apply to '...removals from talk pages, other than your own,...'. --CBD12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
For any problems, issues, ideas, etc for the new multi level templates, could I suggest we keep them all grouped on the talk page here please WT:UTM. Regards Khukri(talk . contribs)19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Substitution bot
As an exercise, I just went through a couple of transcluded new-style user warnings and did the substitution (with sig=n), and marked them as unsigned.It's a bit of a PITA, and remarkably error prone to do by hand (since not substing generally means they don't get signed).I noticed another editor had tried before me on one of them and ended up just reverting their attempt.
Has anyone considered a bot for this purpose?I'd be willing to look into it if no-one else is yet, and people think it's a reasonable idea (I'm quite capable, and well qualified).
A couple of useful bot-worthy tasks I can think of off the top of my head:
Look for "double signed" warnings (although I haven't seen any of these yet, I expect they will start to crop up)
Reminding non-substing and double signing editors about the proper use of the user warning templates
Maybe this could happen after they've got it wrong n times
Possibly start reorganising new warnings as per WP:UW#Layout
I expect this is a bit more controversial though, and would need loads of discussion about the trigger for a reorg.
So, does anyone know of an existing effort to do a similar bot?Does anyone have any comments on my ideas?Is this even the best place to be discussing this? MarkChovain22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote above, bring it up on WP:UTM. There's a fair chance however that the sigs won't be there in 12 hours or so, as there's a strawpoll on the go over there. Khukri(talk . contribs)22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I know that there is quite a bit of controversy over users being able to remove warnings from their talk page, but I think general consensus is that it is improper procedure to remove them to try to cover up previous vandalism.This is especially annoying when using something like VandalProof, which will detect warnings on talk pages but will not search through edit histories.It just makes it easier on editors if people leave their warnings up so that others can decide what level warning to use next. I realize this is a controversial topic... so, taking a leaf out of the old {{removewarn}} template, I designed a set of new templates with the level system, they're on my sandbox page User:Sbrools/Sandbox. The wording is designed so that it does not automatically assume that a user is trying to cover up past vandalism, but also informs them that removing warnings is frowned upon without a legitimate reason. I'm not sure that it's a serious enough offense to block someone, but I tried to follow the other templates in that regard...Can anyone tell me what they think of them?I'm not offended if we decide not to use them, I realize that some people disagree with the removing principle...--Sbrools(talk . contribs)04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ben and I agreed that "there's widespread support for the right to delete anything off one's own talk page". Trying to sway this support is not within the scope of this project. Ben pointed out correctly that "going to the history seems safer, as long as the warnings show up in the summaries there".
We then disagreed on what this means for us now. While Ben seemed to say we should not add any wording to the templates, I would like to have some wording that advices users what to do (similar to {{dontremovewarn}}, only shorter). My reason is that especially newbies don't know what to do. The more daring (or nastier) people will delete them, which means (as Sbrools explained in detail) that VandalProof will miss them, which just isn't fair, because it puts the nicer people at a disadvantage.
I then drew some other consequences from Ben's (and Sbrools, as it turned out) observations:
We should write a notice on top of WP:UTM that says: "When you add one of these templates, copy the double curly braces and their content (without "subst:") intom the edit summary. This ensures that we will be able to search for such warnings in the userpage history." Once we can rely on that, it shouldn't be too hard to change VandalProof to collect such information.
Eventually, I could imagine VandalProof or a related tool to do everything with just two clicks (Disclaimer: I haven't used VandalProof yet.):
Revert vandalism and display user's warning history;
We really need to address the extensive amount of links (533) to Template:TestTemplates (and, I would assume, other similiar templates which refer to the outdated formats of user talk templates). We should have a bot change all links to direct to WP:UTM. But then again, I'm no logistical master, so my opinions may not be helpful. Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Should we trim some of the welcome templates? We should take this opportunity to do away with a few duplicate ones, even ones on the new UTM page. Xiner (talk, email) 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Good stuff. I had imagined the deletes being suffice but that was a bit naive really and a bit too boilerplate. all of the drm tags could do with this treatment if you have the time. I'm still a bit incommunicado but should be back this week sometime to get phase II off the ground. Khukri - 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea but I can't seem to find the right wording to be general and informative enough. If someone has an idea... :) -- lucasbfrtalk12:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Shortened versions
I've created redirects that cover shortened names for the "vanilla vandalism" templates. You can now use "uw-v1" through "uw-v4" and "uw-vandal1" through "uw-vandal4". (Someone else already covered "uw-vand1" through "uw-vand4".)
I'd encourage others to make shortened names for all of the rest of the families of warnings.
I did this page at the beginning of the project when we thought to re-direct all the old warnings at the launch (glad we didn't now). I'm going to list all the warnings in existance soon and I think we can add these redirects to that page. Khukri - 17:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Mmm I like the wording, more friendly than {{Uw-creation1}}. And being a bit more specific sorry can't find the word... I mean something a bit like "talkative"? on the guidelines doesn't hurt (while remaining general enough for the template to be useful of course). Perhaps you might wish to merge both templates? -- lucasbfrtalk15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Same as Lucas, however I would change it from first person (I), to either first person plural (we), orif possible make it person neutral entirely. Try and merge it into the{{uw-creation1}} and I think it's a winner making that warning more friendly.Khukri - 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed I've resurrected the overview page, to start the second phase of this project. I need about a week to get it ready, so if you'd be so kind as to leave me be with it in the mean time that would be appreciated. Cheers Khukri - 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Legal threat warnings
I have created some warning templates to use when legal threats are made.
Due to the nature and severity of both legal threats and the releasing of personal info they will be covered by a single issue template, with a one warning and then you're out type approach. However they won't come into being for a couple of weeks yet so in the meantime by all measn make your accessible to everyone. Khukri - 08:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Blatantvandal and Vw
When vandal-fighting previously, I occasionally used the sequence
for blatant vandalism, especially regarding a string of obscene words and concepts placed in bad faith. May I make these suggestions to aid with WP:UW/O, regarding my opinion about how redirects should go?
A very, very important purpose of templates is to inform the recipient of policy and guidelines. "Vandalism will result in a block" is WP:VAND in a nutshell. It's also important to let people know that people can't revert with impunity. It's good for templates to be short, but they should contain sufficient amount of policy and policy explanation; just a side note to bring up, which may not apply. GracenotesT § 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking over un-substituted use, I guess that you're right. I've always used it in the manner I specified above; this difference is probably a result of not having an organized WikiProject to handle it! With regards to content, though, bv seems to be more like {{uw-v3}}, with the whole "continue to vandalize results in a block" idea. The only thing is that uw-v3 has softer language than bv. Perhaps bv could redirect to it is the language were a bit more explicit and to-the-point (like bv is)? For now, your suggestion sounds good; however, I don't want to alienate those that don't like 4im templates, among whose ranks I shall not be found. GracenotesT § 07:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Bot substitution
Does the project group plan to ask one of the subst: bot owners to modify their bot to search for non-substituted warnings using the new templates? I've been running into quite a few non-subst:'ed warnings.-- Gogo Dodo06:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I asked and it's done. WinBot and Alphachimpbot are now subst'ing the uw-* templates. Those are the only two bots that I know of that are doing template substitution. -- Gogo Dodo07:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto for another new template, Template:UsernameConcern, to begin discussion directly with the user before going to RFC/NAME, for those of us too harried and/or tired to type up a long and diplomatic note by hand. Ben02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There are now six templates, all created for the RFC folks:
It's important to "subst:" these, and include the parameters marked "required" in the template usage notes: several features won't work right otherwise.
The "Concern" templates overlap with "user warning" templates in general topics, but here any escalation would be to an RFC -- rather than to stronger warnings and ultimately a block. That is, these address "gray area" issues, less severe than gross or blatant or obvious violations; where opinions might legitimately differ, and consensus might conceivably end up going either way. Also, these templates are not mandatory, just made available to anyone who needs or wants to use off-the-shelf boilerplate text rather than type in the text from scratch. People are still welcome to "roll their own".
I just started using the new format. What is the correct procedure when dealing with a very long list of existing warnings? IF there are only a couple of recent warnings, it is easy enough to make them all into the new format. I ended up just starting over at the end - see User talk:207.106.138.2 --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it's not clear when you mean a long list? If you are talking about a long list of warnings already on a users talk page, there is no need to change any old or existing warnings on their page. Except in certain cases either deleting or archiving warning on the page that are older than three months. if you can give me some more info or leave a message on my talk page, I'll help you out. Khukri - 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The section on Maintenance above says that older warnings can be removed. Personally, I've been reformatting them to fit the new warning structure, for example User_talk:205.155.216.9. I don't touch the text of the warning, I just move it into monthly blocks. I only do this some of the time, however. First of all, I get all itchy whenever I touch someone else's warning. It seems somehow wrong. :)
If the example you gave, I would have done one of two things, depending on how busy I felt. If I had plenty of time, I would have reworked the whole page, deleting some of the older stuff. If I didn't feel I had the time, I would have just dropped a UW- warning at the end of the page, but no warning header. Then, I'd make a promise to come back "one of these days" to clean up the rest of the warnings. Mdwyer23:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
As above reformatting old warnings that have been left can be seen to be over doing it a bit. On an unformatted heavily warned talk page, I would archive anything older than three months, group any old warnings by month and maybe number and bullet point them as per the layout guideline. Khukri - 13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Block templates
Why do the block templates (e.g. {{uw-block1}}) have a link to the talk page? They're placed on talk pages, so the link doesn't do anything. What other pages are they going to be on? – Qxz11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable point I can't think of anything. Remove it if you wish if there is a reason behind it then it can easily be reverted later. Cheers Khukri - 15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Warning: "Please do not touch this page"
Is the warning "Please do not touch this page as I'm currently setting up the second phase of this project. as I'm currently setting up the second phase of this project." still valid? I'm sorry, I noticed it too late. Please feel free to revert my last edit. — Sebastian04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Not a prob, I've been busy as hell with work so I'm going to remove it and ask others to get stuck in. Khukri - 10:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Help needed
Unfortunatly I'm too busy as hell at the moment, what with work and house renovations, which means I can't devote as much time at the moment to the single issue template as I did when we did the multi-level warnings. If regulars on this project who know what's going on could visit the re-done overview page and add their comments that would be appreciated. We're trying to identify what there are duplicates of, what can be redirected where, the single issue templates that need to be created or left as is, what can be XfD or de-categorised. Then we can go on to deciding the layout on all of these templates and start the whole shooting match off again. coople of things I've been mulling over is the uw- prefix is it necessary for single issue, or do we want the same for all, if it's not a warning do you use ut- um- or nothing? I'd like to see the category change from user warnings to user messages as is the name of this page here. At the moment welcomes are listed as warnings, we can then add the shared IP's headers etc without any problems. Please keep all the discussion about this over here and not WT:UTM, that way we can keep the existing templates discussion away from theoretical templates and what may happen. I see a couple of you have started to get stuck in, but please I'd like more opinions. Thanks and over n out. Khukri - 08:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I created a quick template called uw-thankyou. A user that I had warned responded with an apology — or at least an explanation of their actions. I'd like some way to take the bite out of my warning, but I don't think removing the warning is the right thing to do. So I created something that says, "The problem still happened, but you appear to be a good editor and you have promised to do better." Does this fit into the spirit and goals of the UW project? --Mdwyer18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
OK but it shouldn't really be uw as it's not a warning. But add it to the overview page and we'll see how it goes. Cheers Khukri - 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I created {{uw-racism}} today, which can be seen here:
Please do not make racist comments towards other users, as you did at {{{1}}}. Wikipedia has a strict 'no personal attacks' policy. Users who continue to be racist towards other users may be blocked. You have been blocked for {{{2}}} for your comments at {{{3}}}.
This is intended for use on controversial topics that involve racism, e.g. Israeli apartheid, Balkan-related topics etc.
I'm still not entirly sure about adding uw for having uw sake. We did it for a reason with the multi level temaplates but for single issue is it necessary? I think a warning of racism would be the same as {{pinfo}} or {{threat}}, one warning n then your out. Khukri22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's logical to add the uw- prefix, so people may separate the new and old templates, also it enables clearing the template namespace from words that have ambiguous meaning, and often means something else than an user warning, both of multiple and single level warnings. One example of this is the legacy template {{drmafd}}, because {{afd}} was taken (what now drm stands for is beyond me). If we want, we could always expand the prefix to um- for notices (non-warnings and welcome messages). →AzaToth13:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be a good idea, once the overview page has been completed with secondary comments I'll flesh out all the single issue templates and put them all in this format for people to see. Then take into account all Gracenotes shortcuts, I think we could get a pretyy comprehensive harmonised system. Khukri17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Uw-tpv
I'm wondering about the Uw-tpv templates? Are these appropriate to use if a user regularly deletes comments off of their own talk pages and only archives some comments? Or if the user regularly deletes warnings? The Uw-tpv templates sites the talk page guidelines which includes this as well. Obviously the warning isn't really written for this, but I couldn't find anything else for someone systematically hiding conflicts by arching some discussions and deleting the rest. Any thoughts? Miss Mondegreen10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
A question of that, if you are going to warn a user, and see that the user has removed old warnings, should I restore those warnings, or on a blank page, add a single more severe warning directly? →AzaToth13:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally I restore the page content if the edit was just blanking. But I don't warn them for that. The cleanest way would probably be directly adding the next in line template. -- lucasbfrtalk15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not just users who remove warnings, but talk page comments in general which is against the talk page guidelines. I've noticed a lot of user's remove comments and suggestions that don't show them in a good light when they archive by archiving five out of six comments and leaving an edit summary that says archiving. Or they respond to an ordinary talk page comment or light warning with a lot of anger and remove the initial comment, leaving something only on the other user's talk page. So one user's talk page may look like they've picked fights with everyone west of the mississipi, but if you go and look at the other user's talk page diffs, they didn't. And the other user's pages may make them look fair and balanced, but they've picked fights and done a million other things. I once had someone pick a fight with me because they thought it was hostile, inappropriate and nasty of me to have placed a template warning on their page when I could have hand-written one (I'm not kidding).
Anyway, I think that things should be straightforward all the way through on this issue. If users can delete warnings and comments on their own pages, the talk page guidelines should be ammended, and the usage guidelines for the template should be also. And we shouldn't have warnings for removal of warnings or anything else to the talk page, because users can do what they want. If users are supposed to maintain talk records, then again, things should be the same. The problem is that we are giving out one message in some places and another message in other places. Miss Mondegreen | Talk02:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Template glitch in npov1?
I tried to use {{subst:uw-npov1|Article|Additional text}}, but the preview function showed that my "Additional text" was not incorporated into the message. I cannot discern why, so I infer that there is an error in the template structure. (As a result, I ended up escalating the warning level and sending the user {{subst:uw-npov2|Article|Additional text}}, which worked the way it is supposed to work.)--orlady14:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Woops fixed. Tell me what you think since I made the last sentence optional and diseapear when you add the additional text. Having it and the additional text seemed weird to me. -- lucasbfrtalk15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I haven't tried to send anyone that warning recently to see how it works, but I endorse your idea of deleting that last sentence when the additional text element is used. Thanks! --orlady16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
comments, misleading edit summaries
Hi -- A little confused about the "comments" on the front page, so I'm posting here. Currently the recommendation on "wrongsummaryX" templates is to merge with "edit summary personalX". The edit summary personalX summaries are about abusive summaries; the wrongsummaryX templates are about inaccurate or intentionally misleading summaries. I've had encounters with editors who attempt to disguise their edits with misleading summaries, describing as "reverting vandalism" when they're actually vandalizing, etc. This is really confusing for folks who are just scanning lists and reading edit summaries, and a tag that specifically addresses this behavior is important for documenting the problem. --lquilter16:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template
What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected), is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter: {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}} you get:
Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
(and the rest of the template stays the same)
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben05:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Shortcuts for RFC-related templates
Khukri had suggested:"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase." Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding {{UsernameBlocked}} already had shortcut {{unb}}, I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since {{ucr}} and {{unc}} were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:
I paralleled the naming format and shortcuts of the pre-existing (and protected) {{UsernameBlocked}}, adding rfc-prefixed shortcuts to meet this project's standards. Since that template's {{usernameblock}} / {{unb}} formats are already in heavy use (and in policy), I thought it best not to delete them. Redirects let people use the format they prefer: full words for those who can't remember the abbreviation, and abbreviations for those who want to save typing time. -- Ben19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
On WT:RFC someone asked for a template to notify other users of a conduct RFC (not about them), which I hadn't thought to write because such a short text is almost as easy to just type from scratch, but hey, if it saves a few keystrokes and it's wanted, that's reason enough. So I've created {{ConductDiscussion}} (used as {{subst:ucn|username}} for short), and it's in the table. -- Ben23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Having done some tinkering, I'm actually feeling rather proud of {{ucn}} / {{ConductNotice}}, after all. I built in a bit of functionality that makes it a little more than just a short text-printing macro. When someone's already been the subject of one or more previous RFCs, the new RFC is supposed to have a number appended to the name. RFC#1 may be "John Doe", but after that come "John Doe 2", "John Doe 3", and so forth, which would put the burden on you to look up the current RFC's number and add that to the notice. Originally I made this an optional parameter: {{subst:ucn|John Doe|2}}, etc. But now, as long as the numbering is standard format (not in parentheses or Roman numerals or anything odd like that), and all the RFCs are still around to be counted, this template will look up the number for you and provide the correct link -- so all you have to provide is the username. <wipes sweat from brow> -- Ben05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The next step (second phase)
moved down to re-highlight
Right here we go again, deja vu anyone?
OK I've listed all the templates and other stuff that come under the Category:User warning templates on the overview page. This is so we can identify what in the old system needs to be redirected where, what single issue templates need to be created and what needs to be deleted. I've gone through the whole list of warnings and added my comments to what I think should be done. Yes I know there will be a couple of mistakes so don't come storming in as others have done recently, making demands about changes, I've just gone through 400 odd templates, I won't be very sympathetic. What I would like however is you to find the mistakes, I've left another comments column and some of you (thankyou) have already started verifying my work. I'm not asking all of you to do all of them but take a section and double check my work please. I've bullet pointed a couple of ideas below and would appreciate comments and thoughts on them please. Once we have a couple of people in agreement or nothing come out of the woodwork, then we'll start creating or tidying the single issue templates, doing the redirects, deletions etc. If anyone has anything else that jumps out at them, bullet point it and add your moniker. Khukri - 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see the category changed from User warning templates to something like User talk templates, welcome templates, sharedIP etc, aren't warnings, and I would like them included all in one category, WP:UTM doesn't only deal with warnings. K
All the various image warnings need an expert eye of someone from that domain. I suggest we prefix them {{im-warning}} much like we have for uw- & db-.K
The nothanks warnings need someone from the copyvio mob to simplify, I don't know this area as well as others and I may have over simplified their structure. Again all warning should start copyvioxxxxxx, as no thanks isn't instuitive, no thanks to what, a smack round the head? K
I'm not a fan of prefixs for prefix sake. The uw prefix was brought in to avoid conflict with the existing system but if it's not a warning lets not label it uw for anything new, if you want to keep the system call them ut- for other warnings and I'm not sure if putting this on all the single issue templates is worth while. We're going to be doing this change bit by bit, unlike the last time when we unleashed them all in one go, so changing the format on someones {{sign}} template won't be as serious. K
Recommended format needs to be designed. Here we go again <sigh> who wants images who doesn't? The header templates like welcome etc, need tidying but the shared IP, AOL, template aren't far off and shouldn't need much work. But again lets get them all looking at least roughly the same, no luminous red boxes or such. Currently alot of the single issues have the info icon, my preference is with, but I know alot of you don't like them, so up to you. K
IMPORTANT
Guys, a few of you have added some comments to the overview page, I'll leave it a couple more days and if I here nothing else I'll take it as a green light, to create all the templates and put the redirects in place. I think it maybe better in that regards as it actually gives you guys something to get stuck into a mold to your needs. But I would appreciate some feedback. Cheers muchly Khukri10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Khukri, it's also rather important that you note the existence of a redirect template, {{r from warning template}}, and its respective category, Category:Redirects from warning template. Not tagging redirect user warning templates with this will create a lot of work. And if the template replacement is going to happen soon, as many people as possible need to be informed about it. Finally, if there's anything related multi-level warnings that I can do, just ask! GracenotesT § 20:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've got a trip planned back to the UK next week for ten days, so will most probably start shortly after then. If anyone knows much about images on wikipedia there's a shed load of image templates that need to be sorted. Cheers Khukri22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Was it decided (or not discussed) to use the "uw" prefix for images, or use "im"? If not discussed, anyone can feel free to weigh in their opinion. GracenotesT § 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer the uw prefix; even though these templates deal with images, they're still warnings of a sort. On another note, would anyone object if I moved/copied the suggested layout for warnings from WP:UW to WP:UWT? That layout seriously neatens up the talk pages and more people should be using it. —Elipongo(Talk|contribs)08:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's on my list of things to do of merge WP:UW and WP:UTM, but i'd preferred to have done it after the project was wrapped up. But I'm beginning to think it's overkill these two projects, and we bosh everthing straight over to WP:UTM. Khukri11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I get the distinct impression I'm pissing into the wind with my work here. With no real feedback after a month and only a couple of editors having done some corroboration on all my template suggestions I get the feeling there is no interest in harmonising the single issue templates. So with this in mind I vote we wrap up this project, forget about the single issue work, and move everything over to WP:UTM. Of course leaving it in a bst state possible. Cheers Khukri10:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you're feeling unappreciated. I can tell you, personally, that it is quite the opposite. I think you're doing a great job, and I'm not helping because I'm not sure I see where I can help you. I'll look again, though. Sorry about that. --Mdwyer17:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not about being unappreciated, we saw the furore that came after a handful of us did the multi-warning templates, with editors coming in saying how dare we change the existing system without personally telling them. I have some pretty specific idea on how I see the new system evolvoing and I'm quite confident there are quite a few other editors that share my views. But the last thing this project or wikipedia needs is a one man show, that even smacks of it being railroaded through. Hence I need as many view points as possible to corroborate this work, as there will always be that one editor out there who will want to revert it all because they weren't personally involved. Cheers Khukri17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Shared IP Notice
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice
It seems like a number of patrollers are adding a little footer to the end of every one of their warnings. Could we add this to the warning header, instead? --Mdwyer17:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest taking it over to WT:UTM and maybe add it to the end of all the usual suspects, such as vandalism, test & delete, I wouldn't though add it as a header, as it detracts from the message that follows. Khukri17:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. All you're seeing is the router or gateway address. Classic example is look what happened recently with Qatar I think it was, seemed like the whole country was behind only one IP. Khukri18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The given messages is made from TW, and is only assigned to IP-addresses, not registered users.
if ( TwinkleConfig.showSharedIPNotice && isIPAddress( wgTitle ) ) {
switch( QueryString.get( 'type' ) ) {
case 'vand':
notice += "\n:''If this is a shared [[IP address]], and you didn't make any [[Wikipedia:vandalism|unconstructive]] edits, please ignore this warning '' ";
break;
default:
notice += "\n:''If this is a shared [[IP address]], and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice'' ";
break;
}
}
Right, but it doesn't need to be added to every single notice. It needs to be added ONCE per anon ip talkpage. By that same argument, it shouldn't be added to the end of every single warning template. If you want to include this warning, it should at least fit into the template.
{{uw-test1|Article|If this is a shared [[IP address]], and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice}}
Another option would be to have a separate s/warning for anon IPs. Or change the default anon IP footer to include text along the lines of, "This may be a shared IP address, and so warnings on this page may not apply to you." --Mdwyer20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have some concern that adding a shared IP "out" to every warning could potentially confuse vandals or even suggest we're not serious and won't actually enforce. One header at the top of the Talk page seems more manageable. Since from time to time we verify whether or not various IP addresses are shared, suggest that the header be changable when we actually know more about the IP address involved. Best, --Shirahadasha00:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
New - Optionally, if you block a name that is clearly vandalism or trolling, you can use {{subst:UsernameBlocked-vandal}}.
I'm moving the line off RFC/NAME because that page really isn't for discussing "grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames" -- these should be reported to WP:AIV instead. This is really not an RFC-related template. However, it's worth bringing to the template-messages/user-talk-namespace and WikiProject-user-warnings talk pages, for fitting into the new standardized scheme.
BigDT comments: "The singular thing that I care about is that in some fashion, people who are obviously sockpuppets of banned users, individuals creating trolling usernames, etc, don't receive the standard {{usernameblock}} message that invites them to create a new account. Whether the template is named unbv, uw-name4, whatever, and where the template is listed, I am really not picky one bit." (There was more discussion here.) -- Ben07:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, and is certainly a problem becoming more prevalent. Only suggestion as it is a block would or could we not change the look to be similar to uw-block3? Cheers Khukri15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of information regarding what templates there are, how to phrase them, etc. But they all seem to assume some basic knowledge of the way templates are used. Perhaps the information is out there and I just didn't see it... But for example, I've just corrected a number of vandal edits (for the first time) and would like to warn the user... I think the user deserves a vandal3 warning (assume bad faith) since the edits were obvious vandalism, insertion of profanity & nonsense words. But it wasn't clear to me what I do with the template. I think it goes on the user's talk page? A couple explicit examples of the most common templates the average editor might want to use would be nice, organized like:
You see this:
A proper response is this:
Placed here:
The table on this page shows you what text to include in your message. In this case, you would
Type this: {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} (you should also probably add your signature with ~~~~)
or this: {{subst:uw-vandalism3|Woodrow Wilson}} (if you want to specify the page that he vandalized)
on the user's talk page. Then you would end up with this text:
and since this is a notice, it is unlikely that he would respond to it (if he did, he would respond on your talk page). Anyways, I'm glad to see such a responsible new contributor, and I hope you enjoy your time here :). --MaskedSheik00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There is also a recommended layout over at WP:UW that includes a Warnings header on the user's Talk page, with subheaders in the form of "Month Year". Each warning then is placed in a numbered lists, with blocks being bullet items. --GargoyleMT16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I guess what I was really missing is a definitive statement that templates are to be placed on the user (that you're warning)'s talk page. That was implied a few places but none of the pages discussing the templates seem to state it directly. Jeffadams7817:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Removing warnings
I apologise if this is not the right place to ask, if so, please direct me to the right place. I have one question, is there a guideline or rule that states if the removal of warning templates from a user's talk page by the user him or herself is allowed or disallowed? I faintly remember having read something like that but I'm unable to find it in the various policy pages. IntinnTalk!19:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Right I'm going off for a couple of weeks, back to the UK.
I see a few of you are still plugging away at the overview page, which after I thought no-one was interested anymore is quite encouraging. Most of you are aware of the work done during the multi-level warnings, and know how the few of us who implemented the changes work. What I'm suggesting is when I come back, I will attack all of the suggestions on the overview page, in a very short amount of time. Lucas, Gracenotes, Aza, Ben, Will and all the other stalwarts, if you could all just do a handful of corroborating, or add fresh view points that would be greatly appreciated. Anyway traa fer now and speak soon. Khukri15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this
What I think we need is a warning which is given to those who talk in the article, and by that I mean, pretty much the same warning we give to those who use the Talk pages as a chat room but, in this case, in an article page. Ive been reverting many of these lately. What do you think? --James Bond07:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
ok, I created this template, this is just a draft:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from engaging in a general discussion of the topic in the article page as you did in {{{1}}}. Instead, use the appropriate talk page. Please remember that talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Well, not really. Those warning are intended for those users who use a Talk page as a forum and not to discuss how to improve the article. What I'm talking about is a warning for users who talk in the article page itself: (e.g.: in the Big Mac page, a user edits the page and writes "I love Big Macs, what about you? I always buy the fries as well"). --James Bond09:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see User:SunStar Net/Template:Vandalblock, this is a new one I created that is intended to warn vandals that when their block expires, that vandalism will be taken seriously. In both examples below, 24 hours is used as an example, though any parameter can be specified.
Here it is, subst'ed for clarity:
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for vandalism. Please edit constructively once your block has expired. Vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia.
I wanted to gush, but first went to look at older discussions. I found a comment saying that icons everywhere weren't going to be helpful. Which was jarring, as that is what I wanted to gush about.
I had just come from placing another warning on a user page where, inspecting to make sure I'd not typed "{uw-test1..." yet again, I finally 'got' the icons! Since it was obvious the source of the multiple graffiti was not a native English speaker, icons suddenly took on a much greater importance. I mean 'non-constructive' and 'reverted' are not beginners' English. But and the rest are quite simple. Thank you! And any chance you could make the icons larger at each successive level? (I didn't go that far back in the discussions. :-) Shenme06:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the icons. It draws attention to each individual warning. I noticed that the old warnings don't have icons anymore and its hard to quickly differentiate the warnings that are posted in succession. -- Mufka(user)(talk)(contribs)16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally like the icons too, I think they indeed add some clarity (even if a non english speaker won't probably understand what we intend so tell him with a level 1 warning anyway). But I fear that changing the size of the warning when we increment the level might result in a... weird outcome on the pages. But that's just my opinion, I don't recall it being discussed at a point to be honest. -- lucasbfrtalk09:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The new templates
I apologize if this is discussed elsewhere. I have the following questions:
1. Will there be abbreviations for the new UW warnings? Some seem very long.
2. I really like the names of the old warnings because I can type the major ones with one hand (test). Will I still be able to use those names?
1) The more commonly used templates already have shortcuts, if you looks here at {{uw-vandalism1}} you'll see them listed.
2) It's still under discussion at the moment here and WP:UW whether the old template names will redirect to the new templates. But personally I think that unless there are some serious objection, which haven't come forward at the moment, then the redirects will be in place by the end of the month.
Just a note though, please remember the example you have given is a bit of a misnomer. There will be no more test4 as in all reality we cannot be giving final warnings for editing tests and that they have to be called as they are, and this has been replaced by the vandalism series, and the test series are to be reserved for exactly as it says, editors carry out editing test. Cheers Khukri11:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic idea, I think we can not just use it for this project, but also afterwards when we merge WP:UW and WP:UTM in a few weeks (hopefully). Khukri08:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK it's time we finished this off, and clear up the overview page. There are a number of single issue templates that need to be created, though most of you have been creating them over the last month or so (thank you), lets try and get any outstanding ones such as images, nor etc finished.
I will leave posts at both the WP:VPR and WP:AN to bring more input to this discussion. There are one or two editors who do not like the new templates primarily because of the icons, as is their right. We have seen though more posts here and on WP:UTM about the redirects and that they should be put in place. The TfD and MfD comments I put on the overview page will have to go through their own review but the redirects don't, so I propose a straw poll below on whether next week I put all the redirects in place. This will be the redirects such as {{test1}} --> {{uw-test1}} and {{test4}} --> {{uw-vandalism4}}.
The last part, once the harmonisation and the single issue templates are complete, I propose to merge WP:UW & WP:UTM. WP:UW has served well to get through the uw- phase of the project but once the harmonisation is completed IMHO it makes no sense to have two projects discussing the layout of these templates, and responding to editors queries. We are already seeing duplicate posts appearing in both projects, and I feel this only adds to the confusion and that there should be a one stop shop for all template issues. I've added another poll below, and I will leave a message on all editors talk pages who are listed as active or interested in this project.
As we did with the multi level warnings, if you can think of anywhere else to spam this out to please feel free. Cheers Khukri16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added it to {{cent}}. --ais523 10:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Q. Do you agree in principle to the redirects laid out on the overview page and that they can be applied once this poll has finished. This poll is about redirecting the old templates in general, for any specific template issues or comments leave them on the overview page.
I'd prefer see the discussion remained here mainly for future posterity, and not lost amongst the VPR archives. If someone at somepoint wishes to trace the reasoning behind why things were done in this project it's better to keep the record here (or merged with WP:UTM), and keep all info together. We don't habitually look through the VPR archives for information, and I feel this strawpoll is quite important that it stays here. Why I didn't again put this on WP:UTM is that the harmonisation program was carried out by WP:UW again trying to contact all 'n sundry leaving messages to visit here for further information. I don't want WP:UTM to become bogged down with discussions on symantics for any new templates or layouts. I've just got into work, I'll hold off putting a post on VPR for a little while if you are still sure the strawpoll should be moved there, then no probs I'll do it later on. Cheers Khukri08:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the VPR archives are blanked after a certain length of time (although the proposals are still in its history). --ais523 10:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-14 10:42Z. I haven't examined all the specific mappings but I agree in principle. Also the WP pages currently marked "MfD - obsolete" don't need to be actually deleted - just redirect them to the appropriate project page. —Quarl(talk) 2007-03-14 10:42Z
Either way seems boilerplate to me, with or without the icon, and standardization is important, so support in principle. –Pomte22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support, since it's the next natural step in the process of unification of warning templates. The redirects will help people still used to the old ones move on to the new set without causing too much confusion (of course, everything that's new causes anxiety, but that's not a reason to hold off progress). Secondly, while some people may not like the new templates, this argument can be reversed, because just as many might find the old ones ugly (and they are, more often than not poorly formatted - personally, I like the new ones a lot more). Миша1318:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Currently, people have a choice. Only one format is being taken away, so it's hardly fair to reverse the argument. I agree that we'd be better off with a single set of warning templates, but I don't believe that consensus for the new design has been established outside of the project through which they were created. —David Levy18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
OpposeRemoving my opposition here; see the thread for details Sorry about this, but I don't like the new warnings at all. So far, people who disagree with the uw-style warnings have been free to just ignore WP:UW and use {{subst:test}} et al without problems, but you're kind of forcing the issue here. Because the style of warnings is something that you're unlikely to please everyone with, why not just leave two separate systems so that different people can use whichever system they think works better? (Although I may have answered my own question with this helpme answer, as trying to explain two separate systems is a bit longwinded and confusing.) As a record of why I don't like the new warnings (which is mildly irrelevant to this straw poll), they're too obviously boilerplate and don't carry even the impression of being hand-crafted. I agree that obviously boilerplate warnings are useful sometimes, but I suspect that forcing everyone to use that style will merely slightly reduce the usefulness of warnings in reducing vandalism (compare {{subst:uw-npov1}}, {{subst:welcomenpov}} (how does that fit in the WP:UW scheme?), and {{subst:NPOV0}} for an example of different levels of formality; the first is obviously boilerplate, the second is reasonably obviously boilerplate but friendlier and more informative, and the third is more informal and can be worked into other text). There are also some technical issues with {{subst:uw-test1}} et al at the moment, but I agree that that's irrelevant to this poll. --ais523 10:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point about avoiding being too boilerplate-y. Perhaps we can harmonize the templates to a level of formality acceptable to all? —Quarl(talk) 2007-03-14 10:39Z
What about having a parameter so that people like me could remove the icon by typing something like '|icon=' at the end of the template? It would simply be a matter of typing {{{icon|(image code here)}}} around each image, and would probably be enough to persuade me to use the new templates. (This coding would leave residual code in the page, unfortunately, but that's a technical problem which doesn't have relevance to this debate.) --ais523 09:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
OK let me know the exact code and what would be required to switch it off and I'll bosh through the templates and modifiy the temapltesnotices. Cheers Khukri10:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In order to prevent residual code if subst=subst: is used, try this coding for the icon: {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{icon|y}}}|[[Image:Information.svg|25px|left]]}} (obviously changing the icon for the higher-level warnings). This seems to work as previously unless |icon= is given as a parameter, in which case the icon disappears. --ais523 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
And it's done, I used the '|icon=' as you first mentioned. Have a look through please and let me know if that's OK. Cheers Khukri13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't like the idea of removing the icons (I think we lose some consistency between the warnings) but well if you think that's necessary... :) -- lucasbfrtalk15:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I also don't like removing the icons, but I'm not really sure how this new coding works. Are icons included or excluded by default? -- Satori Son15:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear, the icons should be on by default and typing |icon= removes the icon. Though I'm not a programming guru and could have balls'd it up. I've run a couple of test and looks OK but if you find a scrfew up let me know. Khukri15:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine, thanks! To be clear, the icons will still be included unless the person using the template deliberately turns them off. --ais523 17:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The welcome templates aren't at the moment covered by this project as they are not warnings per se, but it hasn't been discussed in the past that they get included along with the shared IP templates etc, as a form single issue templates/header. Khukri10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose getting rid of the old ones, I find them far more descriptive than the new ones and therefore use them a lot. Incidentally, the post on WP:AN which directed me to this straw poll was incorrect. These warnings are not the most commonly used ones, in fact I hardly ever see them (admin dealing with WP:AIV). ViridaeTalk 12:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Just had a look at them again, either I am going made or they have changed since I last saw them. However I still oppose redirecting the old ones untill you have created some 5th level warnings (ie block notices) for the individual offences, ie vandalism etc. The current block notices are so ambiguous as to the offences you have committed. ViridaeTalk12:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There is method in the madness honestly. The thought process that went into the current set of block warnings, is that an editor would normally have received, one maybe more warnings directly prior to the blocking, and that there was no need to reiterate the offence. But knowing that one size does not necessarily fit all, the extra parser was added to allow additional text and clarification of the block if it was deemed necessary. Khukri12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah had thought of that, however i would much prefer it if the 5th level warnings either stayed as they are (ie {{Test5}} and were not redirected or you created some 5th level templates for each offence. it would seriously improve the system - I realise the extra parameters in the block notices are there for specifics (and they are useful) but I would still like some block notices for each offence. I do want to specify exactly why they have been blocked int he block noticed but when running through a backlogged WP:AIV I don't want to have to type any more characters than I have to. ViridaeTalk01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
All I know is that I hate typing "uw-" in front of all of my warnings. Would the redirects let me stop typing those additional three characters, which my fingers just don't seem to like to combine in one attempt? --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have thought that if you didn't like the UW prefix then you wouldn't have opposed the re-directs, as it would make you life easier. Khukri22:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Then the much more likely situation is that I have been completely and utterly confused by what is going on with this project. Actually, I somewhat suspected that was the issue all along :P --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 03:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm being too confrontational. However, if there's a reason for you not liking the new ones besides fear of changing a comfortable, yet complex and hard-to-learn system, please say so. GracenotesT § 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We are not deleting them, we're redirecting them, so the name you currently use will give you the new improved all singing all dancing templates. Khukri08:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I must oppose the proposed change. The first/second-level icon looks terrible (being one of those SVGs that scales very poorly for some reason) and makes the templates appear far more impersonal than they need to. The new parameter to remove it is insufficient, as most editors using the {{test}} series won't be aware of the option (or want to type the additional text if they learn of its existence). In fact, most probably aren't aware of this straw poll. I realize that notices have been posted, but those are easy to overlook. I did, and I only found this straw poll when I happened to see a series of pointers to the other straw poll posted by Khukri to several user talk pages on my watchlist. Please note that of the fifteen "support" voters, only three (Pomte, Mrholybrain, and WJBscribe) lack prior involvement in this project. Of the other twelve, eleven (all except Martinp23) have their usernames listed on the adjoining project page. Therefore, this is not a valid cross-section of the community. It was noted above that no TfD discussion is required to create a redirect. That's true, but none is required to revert one back either. It is, however, poor form to take over protected templates without establishing consensus via a formal process. So while I'm certain that all of this is being carried out in good faith, I'll point out that this straw poll (like all straw polls) is entirely non-binding. I shall withdraw my personal opposition (while reserving the right to act on the opinions of those unable to edit the templates) if the icon is removed or hidden by default ("icon=" to add it). —David Levy15:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggested above that we hold the discussion on the proposals village pump... would you support that? (Perhaps a subpage might be better, to have the discussion more easily accessible in the future.) I should also comment that some people listed on the project page are not really that active—some of them were imperative in creating the old test1-test2-test-test4-test5 system, but not as active in creating the uw- system. Others just listed themselves because they support the uw- objectives that the project has, that's all, so it's no surprise that they supported them here. I personally agree that this should be non-binding, however... GracenotesT § 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I reposted a message about this strawpoll on VPR & AN and contacted all the WP:UW members this morning. But I'm beginning to agree with you about moving it to VPR, though I think no matter where we have the strawpoll, unless we put it on the front page there will always be someone who wasn't informed, and therefore they feel will make this strawpoll invalid. By all means cut & paste it, but may I suggest leaving the header, as this where I've told everyone to come. Khukri17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the fact that the objective is to redirect protected templates (which most users cannot edit), I believe that WP:TFD is the proper discussion venue (despite the fact that outright deletion is not under consideration). That's the forum in which people interested in following proposals to deprecate templates (including those without ties to the user warning project) expect to find such debates. And no, I'm not surprised that the individuals in question would cast "support" votes. My point is that most of the straw poll's participants previously expressed an interest in furthering the project (and likely added it to their watchlists), so the results are highly skewed and not representative of the community as a whole. Additionally, many have not commented on the icon, so they might only be supporting the unification/nomenclature itself (which I support as well) and not any specific design. —David Levy18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm up for putting wherever will give this strawpoll the largest audience. Unfortunately I think putting this strawpoll at WP:TfD will not give it greater publicity in comparison to here or VPR as there is a small but dedicated core there. Average joe bloggs visits there less than he will any other forum already mentioned. I personally believe where this strawpoll is held is irrelevant, so long as all the relevant communites (within reason) are informed. As you have seen I have posted this twice at both and WP:AN and WP:VPR (which I believe is the correct forum), It's on centralized discussion, the intial changes including the icons were in the signpost as well as various other noticeboards. Any other locations more the merrier. Khukri19:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You keep using the term "strawpoll." I'm saying that a straw poll (no matter how well publicized) is insufficient. The problem isn't that too few people are being informed. It's that the right people aren't being informed. Almost everyone participating in this debate is involved in the user warning project. This is because most of the individuals seeing the notices have little or no interest. The "right" people are the ones likely to discuss this even if they lack prior involvement. This describes the denizens of TfD. There's no reason why others must be excluded (and such a TfD debate certainly can be advertised elsewhere), but you're ignoring the users most likely to care. Of course, we may be getting ahead of ourselves. There really are two separate issues here, and you've combined them into a single all-or-nothing proposition. As I noted, I personally support the proposed unification/nomenclature, but I oppose the specific design of the new first/second-level templates (for which no consensus has been established outside of the user warnings project). Unfortunately, you're offering people the choice of either adopting the new design or retaining a redundant set of templates. This should not be a package deal, and it's likely that much of the above support has nothing to do with the icon. The templates' format should be determined first (with the participation of users not affiliated with the user warnings project). If there is no clear consensus regarding the templates' visual appearance, we should default to the status quo. Then the proposed unification should be addressed. —David Levy20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my wording was unintentionally ambiguous. By "with the participation of users not affiliated with the user warnings project," I didn't mean "without the participation of users affiliated with the user warnings project." I meant "in addition to." And no, I don't even mean "not counting towards consensus." While systematic biases should be taken into account, there's no valid reason to disregard the input of any good-faith contributor. —David Levy23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I use the uw-blah templates, I can see why some might prefer the older ones. It is a good idea to have some standards, but variety is not bad. ffm✎talk15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I don't see the point of this. Why should we delete templates people use just because we have newer, fancier templates? Just so vandals all receive the same warnings? People are allowed by policy to use any warnings they want, so that is no reason at all. I don't use the old ones, but as long as there are enough people who do to justify their existence they should stay.--Dycedargж19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The new templates are fine, but they're not sufficient for everyone. It's easy to suggest that we just use TW or a similar program-- I don't always have access to a browser that supports those scripts. Leave them be. You made the new templates, nobody is stopping you from using them and encouraging their use. alphachimp22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, as the removal of several combinations (such as the {{test2}}, which is worded completely differently and is watered down to the point it is IMO useless) and the way the other templates are worded just make me dislike them. I still see no overall purpose or need for standardarization, by the way. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)23:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Q. Do you agree that once all the issues identified on the overview page have been resolved, that the "WikiProject user warnings WP:UW" can be merged with "Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM"?
Without a doubt. The main page I forsee as becoming part of an all encompassing instructions manual including your FAQ. And the talkpages I will integrate in the same way I did when I merged WP:UW and WP:UWLS. Khukri21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Once the second phase (single issue templates) have been completed, the whole system will be in normal operations and there will no longer be a project per se. As most other template pages are based or are subpages of WP:TM it would make sense IMHO to have the pages based there. However as already has been mentioned, the documentation, guides, history etc, will become part of an all encompassing FAQ for User page templates, so if to come out on top means with regards to the documentation then have no fear. Khukri16:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Adding the diff parameter right after the sentence that has a latent link to the first article. For example, change {{uw-test2}} from
...test edits in Wikipedia articles{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, such as those you made to [[:{{{1}}}]],}} even if your ultimate intention is to revert them. If you would...
to
...test edits in Wikipedia articles{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, such as those you made to [[:{{{1}}}]],}} even if your ultimate intention is to revert them. {{{{{subst}}}#if:{{{diff|}}}|([{{{diff}}} diff])}} If you would...
Have an #ifexist parameter for all templates, except for those involving article creation. For example,
...test edits in Wikipedia articles{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, such as those you made to [[:{{{1}}}]],}} even if your ultimate intention is to revert them. If you would...
to
...test edits in Wikipedia articles{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, such as those you made to {{{{{subst|}}}#ifexist:{{{1}}}|[[:{{{1}}}]]|{{{1}}}}},}} even if your ultimate intention is to revert them. If you would...
Except that I would implement 1 and 2 in the same edit. This will allow people to list pages. For example, "1=foo and bar". This was suggested a while ago on the village pump, and makes sense to me.
Standardize the <-- --> comments at the end of each template. Some say "{{uw-whatever}}", others say "Template:Uw-whatever". I would suggest the latter, since it will help newbies find the template quicker (and hopefully not vandalize it).
This is not likely to happen, but change the parameter of "subst" to "s". I often don't type out "subst=subst:" since it's too long, but "s=subst:", maybe. Of course, this will have to be coordinated with AzaToth's twinkle warning system.
I would like to do this soon, although I'm in no hurry. The templates may get complicated, and {{templatesnotice}} will have to be updated, but at at least I'm fine with that... GracenotesT § 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposal for a new template
Would it be a good idea to create a template that encourages people who upload freely-licensed materials to Wikipedia instead of the Commons (some who do it quite often) to upload them to the Commons instead? I am starting to tire of having to delete duplicate images here that are duplicated on the Commons, and having to clean up after the MoveToCommons assistant, which just copies the license used here which often causes unintentional plagiarism and other bad licensing (e.g. Image:Foo by User:Alice, which is put under the GFDL with disclaimers here using {{GFDL-self}} is uploaded to the Commons with the same tag by User:Bob, but that tag on the Commons has no disclaimers, so it violates the GFDL by removing the disclaimers and also leads to unintentional plagiarism by crediting Bob, when the correct tag to use there would have been {{GFDL-user-en|Alice}}, which states that Alice created the image and also preserves the disclaimers. I am quite busy, so I do not have the time to think up the correct words for this template. Jesse Viviano22:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyways, if I was not busy, I would still not want to write this out because I am getting annoyed at these people, so I am afraid that I would write the template in the wrong tone. Jesse Viviano23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a bad idea, and I think I know enough about commons images to take care of this. A single-level notice, I think it should be... perhaps called "uw-freeimage". GracenotesT § 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Could I suggest starting it with 'im-' ? if you look at the overview page, there's quite a few image related warnings that require the attention of someone who knows the intricacies of the image area on wikipedia. Khukri22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
So where to now?
OK I'm stumped, I've been wracking my brains most of last night trying to think of a way round this. From above we can see alot of editors prefer the new warnings, icons, layout, etc and some wish to keep the status quo, disliking the icons, wording or both. Unfortunately these two positions, it seems to me, are diametrically opposed and with the numbers in both camps we have to heed both camps equally. If we change WP:UTM to include all the old templates, then we are in effect leaving it in a worse state than when we started with more ambiguity through the warnings and duplication rife, though some of you may call this having more options to hand. I can't see a way to meet the goals of this project, creating a harmonised/standardised system and maintain an existing system at the same time. User:David Levy suggested a two phase approach of re-investigating the layout including icons, then going for the redirects. It certainly has it's merits but I think in another 6 months we'll still find ourselves in the same position with editors coming in arguing they weren't adequately informed and object to the work being done. I personally think we have spammed/communicated through the various channels the changes to the community, but it's clear others disagree. I've seen recently the templates being referred to as wank in one edit summary, a glorified e-card and useless to name a few contructive criticisms from established editors. A couple of editors have mentioned the don't see the point in having a standardised system and that variety is good. Defeats the purpose of this project really?
I thought that we could just continue on regardless, not carrying out the redirects & leaving the old system intact but continue on with the uw- warnings. But this is pointless, Wikipedia is based on concensus and to have a two tier system along the lines of "I prefer mine to templates to yours, so ner ner" goes IMO completely against this and is devisive to say the least. So where to now? I've spent 6 months on this project and for the first time I have no idea what to do next, so I'm going to sit back & help out with the maintenance at WP:UTM for a bit, but I think the project really needs some new ideas or a fresh approach.
No, there’s no way to please everyone. A minor suggestion, though: {{uw-vandalism2}} seems to be a bit watered-down to people. Perhaps we can bend our no-faith guidelines to make it more like {{test2}}? When there is clear consensus, by the way, we generally do supermajority. GracenotesT § 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, if we were to do a TFD, we should probably have to have a list of objections at the top, and politely mandate people to read it before commenting, to avoid misconceptions (there are many). GracenotesT § 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea I had a look at both {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-test2}} & {{test2}} after one of the comments above and the uw- warnings do seem a bit anaemic in comparison. You wanna do it or shall I?
On the supermajority the problem is though I don't think we'd ever convince anyone there is a clear concensus. And if we follow David's idea of re-discussing the whole shooting match, in 6 months I think we'll be in the same position as there will be another forum, quorum or noticeboard that should have been informed. Cheers Khukri15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit like trying to herd cats, isn't it? My suggestion is to keep trying to build as a good a comprehensive set of new warning templates as possible at UTM. I think we are getting pretty close. As for the old templates, let's redirect them if there is a solid rationale and no clear objection - people can always undo the redirection if objections surface. Otherwise, just leave the old templates be, and let people who like them use them. If they are not on UTM, they will gradually die off. I'm already seeing less and less of the older warnings. (BTW, please chime in at WT:UTM if you have thoughts on the changes I made/propose to the level 2s).--Kubigula(talk)04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I had a quick look through here but couldn't find anything. There is though somewhere but not under this category a template used for not correctly categorising the speedy deletes. If someone can find that I'll make one up for you no problems or if not I'll have a crack at it later on this evening. Khukri16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no need, I'm quite handy with templates so I might cook up one myself. But for now I'm examining how hard it would be to modify the AFD template to automatically generate the warning. —dgiestc16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I preferred the (Image:Stop.png) because it looks a bit better than the ugly SVG image. Although now it deems that most people want all the templates to look the same so it'll stay that way. If somebody can update the (Image:Stop hand.svg icon so it looks better than go ahead. Thats all. -- Hdt83 | Talk23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
When you say "If somebody can update the Image:Stop hand.svg icon so it looks better than go ahead", would changing them all to Image:Stop.png count as changing it so it looks better, or not? I ask only because that's what's likely to happen; I'm certainly not going to do it – Qxz00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the ugly stop hand will discourage potential vandals so they can avoid having that marring their talk pages. Of course, that might just be a pipe dream... --Valley2city₪‽15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless we're actually using the image to physically beat them over the head (something I'm all for, by the way), I don't think so. ;) EVula// talk // ☯ //15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree the SVG image is ugly, but it's kind of important to use the SVG image rather than PNG, for various reasons, least of all the resizing issue. However, the PNG image that you linked to has just (two days ago) been converted to SVG in all its glory, as Stop hand nuvola.svg. It can now be used in the templates safely. If someone with AWB could go through and replace, it'd be nice. Maybe we should gather a straw poll of opinion before doing that, however? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, what are those reasons? When the only use of the image is guaranteed to be smaller than the physical file (such as when its an icon), then sizing is not an issue. And the SVG are converted to PNG for display by the browser anyway. So exactly why is it important to use SVG? -- Renesis (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem at all, I was just waiting on someone to sort one out and I'd knock them off I don't think there's many but I'll run them through tomorrow, at the same time as I do another potential problem from User:Winhunter. Khukri14:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So should we start replacing the icons in the lv4 templates? Or do we have something here that can replace all the icons in one "sweep"? -- Hdt83Chat08:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to do it this afternoon using AWB, at the same time as I do a change to the <!-- templatename --> problem that was identified by User:Winhunter. Also I'm going to reset the image size on the blocks, as User:Z.E.R.O. changed them yesterday without completing the set. Khukri08:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the new Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg goes a little overboard in the style department. In the small 25px size it's usually seen on a talk page, it looks a lot less like a stop signal than Image:Stop hand.svg. I can appreciate the efforts to make all icons and images here look as good and as professional as they can look, but when someone needs to look a little longer at the image to see what it is, it's defeating the purpose a little. I think the image should be as immediately clear as possible, and not try to look like a shiny button or something. Could the stop hand image be switched back to use Image:Stop hand.svg? Robotman197417:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
To counter the effects I increased the size slightly from 25px to 30px so that it looks clearer. I think that it looks good and matches all the other icons great! -- Hdt83Chat19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The old image looked a little out of place, as the blue i and the warning triangle were already stylised in the 3D glass/nuvola/OSX/Windows Vista way anyway. I think it looks great! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it should stay, as new user warnings will be needed at some point in the future, and this is a useful project for people who want to learn how to create and edit templates.
Also, I'm not sure about the ugly "X" sign in {{indefblockeduser}} that's used on a lot of the uw- templates. I preferred the old Image:Octagon-warning.svg to be honest.
Thanks a lot for your feedback :) I think most of our icons don't have the "white inner shading". Some have. (I spotted {{Uw-block2}} and {{Uw-block3}}, when {{Uw-block1}} doesn't have it. I think we might have some kind of consistency problem here :). Guys, which one do you prefer? (I personally prefer the old fashioned ones) -- lucasbfrtalk19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
See two sections up from this one, where I raised the exact same point about the other ugly octagon icon. Now they both have shiny and non-shiny versions that are being inconsistently used – Qxz00:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
How fast is too fast?
Hi. Sorry if this query might belong somewhere else?
How fast is too fast to progress through the UW templates? e.g. is it
wrong to go from {{uw-vandalism1}} up to {{uw-vandalism3}} in the course of a few minutes or an hour if a user keeps repeating the vandalism?
Can we clarify this kind of usage question somewhere? I couldn't seem to find an answer,
I don't know if this project page is the right place for it? Thanks. jhawkinson01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the level of the warning should be up to the user to decide. I personally start at around (uw2) but if the vandalism was severe or was intentional I might go straight to (uw3) for the first warning. Another template for blatant, obvious severe vandalism is the {{subst:uw-bv}}. Hope this helps! -- Hdt83Chat01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
There probably should be some guidance on the main WP:UTM page; however, I think the general idea is that there should be a fair amount of discretion left to the editor. Personally, I follow level one to level two if there has only been one additional vandalistic edit or if bad faith is not absolutely clear. If there have been many vandalistic edits in a short period of time, or if the type of vandalism is particularly nasty (racism, graphic sex etc), then I skip level 2.--Kubigula(talk)01:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a certain amount of discretion. For rapid, blatant vandalism, particularly if prolific, I usually not only skip level 2 but progress through 3 and 4 fairly rapidly. Where the edits are at all arguable, or the user does only a single act and then stops at least temporarily, I progress in regular order. My view is that for blatant vandals -- vandals who are too busy trashing things to bother to read their messages -- the opportunity to be warned is all that is necessary and Wikipedia doessn't have to put the encyclopedia in jeapardy just because vandals may choose not to pay attention to their warnings. Best, --Shirahadasha03:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear! I didn't at all mean skipping levels, but merely if an editor adds blatant vandalism, I revert and add uw1, and then they immediately repeat the same or similar vandalism, should I wait some period of time (5 minutes, an hour, a day) before moving up to uw2? Or is valdalism/uw1/repeat vandalism/uw2/repeat vandalism/uw3/repeat vandalism/uw4 OK all in the course of, say, an hour? jhawkinson04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, yes. Every time the offending person makes a malicious edit, you escalate the warnings. So if a person made a edit, you revert, and then they make another edit, you would immediatly move from uw-1 to uw2 and so on until uw-4 where you report them to AIV. Of course, you can skip levels if the vandalism was severe or blatant. Hopefully this answers your question. -- Hdt83Chat04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The question has just been asked above. The problem is that the orange You have new messages bar does not show up on a school IP. I know this because I saw somebody vandalizing while in the library and posted a message to him but it doesn't show up. Any thoughts why? -- Hdt83Chat01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In every test that I've done, the warnings show up as they should. One thing that could be possible is that if you, while logged in, leave a warning on an anon IP but you are also on the ip but just logged in, your viewing of the page after leaving the warning might prevent the other user from seeing the notice. Also, another user somewhere in the school could also be online and have seen the message indicator. -- Mufka(user)(talk)(contribs)01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the yellow banner only shows up until you visit the talk page. That means that if the IP is shared, the banner might show up on an other computer and the vandal might never see it if the other user is fast to check his messages. -- lucasbfrtalk08:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I had considred the fact that this was a school IP but on another computer at a friend's house, the New Messages bar does not show up when a warning is placed on his IP talk page. I think that something is wrong with the message bar so could someone test it out their self and look at the code for it? -- Hdt83Chat23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
After a test of IP addresses I concluded that there was a bug with the New Messages Bar that is causing the bar to eithernot show up or show up and becomes stuck. See [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hdt83 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Proposal
Hello Wikipeidians. I have made a proposal that would take care of the userbos issues and the general clutter of the Template namespace. Please see it here and make comments conserning it. Thank you for your time. SadanYagci14:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I created the uw-coi to help speed processing of COI investigations. None of the existing warnings fit the situation: a user creates an article about themselves or their company that isn't spam. We simply need to warn the user that they have an apparent conflict of interest, and that they should use extreme caution if they want to make further edits to that article. This is a single level warning. If a user persists in editing, and creates a problem, we would use the standard user warning templates. Could somebody please review this template and provide suggestions. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I really like it and think it is a needed addition to the pantheon of warnings. My only suggestion is a small one - you currently have two wikilinks to NPOV and COI in the template. I could actually almost live with that, as we really want the person to look at those two pages. However, I think the better general practice is to only have one wikilink to each specfic page in a warning.--Kubigula(talk)13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Got to say it is quite good really, and it fits a bloody great hole IMO. Good stuff. I moved your edit to the single issues table, becuase where you put it made warnings like legal and pinfo fall into the notices column. Don't worry I'm doing a mass tidy at the mo, and will sort it later. Khukri13:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Only a few left
I've tidied the single and multi level warning pages that shows actually what the templates give.
As far as I can see here there are only a few outstanding warnings left that need the uw- treatment. This does not include image warnings which I'm going to start on fairly soon with the im- prefix, User:Ben's RfC templates which I've left a message with him about sorting out, or the welcome and sharedIP templates which need to be looked at fairly soon. Below I've listed the templatess that I think need quickly boshed out. If some of you wouldn't mind having a go.
{{Please login}} is uw-tpvx in my opinion. I don't think policy alteration deserves a template on its own, that would be a case where I would write a real message to explain it to the user. Were the {{nn-warn}}, {{nothanks-sd}} addressed? -- lucasbfrtalk16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Damn, you're right I didn't pay much attention to them as I thought that speedy's had there own redirects including the db- that was put on article space thought they'd done db-'s for user space. I'll remove them all tomorrow, as they're currently down as TfD. Show's how many people have noticed it since it's been there for 3 odd months ;) Khukri19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I very boldly edited {{uw-copyright}} so it gives the instructions of {{nothanks-sd}} if the Article parameter is given. Otherwise, the message remains the same. I know that makes a huge template, but myself was not going to use {{uw-copyright}} because of the number of people putting copyvios in good faith (often their own work) and completely lost when they receive the notice, wondering what they can do. Tell me what you think. (The changes don't appear if you don't put the article parameter, so I put an example on the Template talk page -- lucasbfrtalk10:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You probably didn't know that you did this since your probably replaced the icons with AWB but: On uw-copyright and uw-pinfo, you made the icons 25px, as you probably did for all the ones you replaced. However, I had previously made both a lot bigger because they are serious violations. The first can cause trouble for Wikipedia and the second can cause a lot of trouble for editors. So, I've changed them back. Please discuss below if you don't agree. Thanks! --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
OK cheers for that, I'm doing a mass tidy on all the single issues at the mo. Tell you what it grabbed my attention when I looked here just now. I personally think its really overkill and if they're going to ignore the instructions then they'll ignore the godzilla sized image. Dunno, wanna bring it up on WP:UTM? cheers Khukri15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I recently left a uw-copyright warning for someone and it struck me as a bit too much for a first warning, even for something as serious as copyright violation. I think a bit bigger than normal would be fine.--Kubigula(talk)16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be big because copyvio's can cause major problems for the Wikimedia Foundation. Pinfo can risk someone's life (sometimes). --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 16:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw that too. My first thought was that it was too big and we were losing constituency within the system. I personally think that the size of the icon doesn't have much to do with the attention the user will give to them. A stop hand should do the trick. But on the other hand I am not strongly opposed to having bigger size icons if you feel the need to. In my opinion, {{uw-pinfo}} is very, very, very big...
(unindent) This speaks to one of the usual challenges with message templates - you want something that will cover as broad a range as possible, while realizing that the consequence is that the language (or image) may not always be exactly right for every situation. So, I can certainly envision Pinfo or Copyvio situations where you might want a giant stop hand to really make clear that the edit was completely unacceptable. On the other hand, I suspect most first violations (at least for copyvio) are somewhat less egregious and a giant stop hand could be a bit biting. I confess that the first time I used the new copyvio warning, I felt a little like I was biting - in the circumstances of that particular situation. Personally, I believe a stop hand at 40px would be plenty to make our point clear while somewhat lessening the potential bite aspect. At least, I think this is true for copyvio, where I can see a new editor making a good faith error. I haven't personally encountered Pinfo situations, so I am less sure if it's possible to make a good faith mistake in this context.--Kubigula(talk)14:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I like to propose a new set of warnings. Recently, there was an IP creating redirect vandalism, by redirecting Wikipedia:Sandbox to my user page. I left him a note, which was:
This is your last warning. The next time you redirect pages inappropriately, as you did by redirecting Wikipedia:Sandbox to User:AAA!, you will be blocked.
This set of warnings can be used when someone redirects pages innappropriately, such as redirecting "George W. Bush" to "Failure", or something. Anyone agree? --AAA!(AAAA)10:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really as the vandalism was within the sandbox. If you look above there is a warning I have to sort out for the sandbox, but that doesn't address all malicious redirects. Personally I think this is a good idea for a warning, but only as a single issue. As you say Felis, it is essentially vandalism, but you could start by issuing a one off template. AAA, take a copy of one of the single issues and paste your new text into there, not so harsh as your final warning above, but take a guidance from badcat, lang date etc. Then post it up or I'll do it for you over the weekend. Cheers Khukri10:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm no good with words, so you can do it for me, if you like. But I might get started on a few. --AAA!(AAAA)02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
They are all I could do, and are not considered "finished". You guys can edit it to make it better, if you like. --AAA!(AAAA)04:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I still think this warning can be covered by a single issue warning {{uw-redirect}} and that any subsequent redirects are just given as vandalism warnings. Khukri06:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh wait, did you say single issue? Gah, I misread your comment. Anyway, I don't know what to say for a single issue comment. Maybe you can do it? --AAA!(AAAA)10:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
New block templates
I created two new block templates: {{Deaththreatblock}} and {{Legalthreatblock}}. These are intended for the (sadly) increasing number of users who issue, respectively, death or legal threats against Wikipedia or Wikipedians. It would be helpful if someone had a list of users who have already been blocked for these things, so the templates can be placed on their pages. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS)13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
While I find them creative, they're not really needed, as {{Indefblocked}} is enough, and per WP:DENY. Also, you can find the reason of their block in their block log, which is good enough. --AAA!(AAAA)01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I would have no problems with a legal threat block {{us-lblock}} and think it has alot of potential in the same vein as all the rest here. The wording could be identical except you would modify it slightly to something along the lines of You have been blocked indefinately from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for the issuing of legal threats, until such actions are resolved through normal procedures. The block has been applied the so that the matter is not exacerbated through anything other than legal channels. . The death threat block there is no system in place within Wikipedia AFAIK, (also as per AAA!'s comments) and you would go through the normal WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL channels and warnings.
If you look at the warnings, you will see we have a similar look and feel through all the warnings, and the death head with it's current image isn't the type of warning we would create. Cheers Khukri07:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me say that {{Npa6}} also works pretty much the same way as your templates. I don't know if I've already said this, but those types of templates are better off as user warnings for their talk page than user page templates. --AAA!(AAAA)04:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Another proposition
Do we have user warning templates for trolling? If not, should we create a series for it? (A good name could be {{uw-troll1}} etc) --AAA!(AAAA)04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea, but my knee jerk reaction is that we don't need it. Many (though perhaps not all) trolling situations can be dealt with by another template (the {{uw-npov}} or {{uw-chat}} series, for example). Perhaps more importantly, I've become a big believer in the notion that the best way to deal with trolls is to largely ignore their attempts at provocation - don't feed them.--Kubigula(talk)05:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I was recently looking at {{test2}}, and found out it uses more than one parser function. I was wondering if we should expand our parser functions in some of the uw- templates with the same one as that template, which is the following:
{{#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did {{#if:{{{diff|}}}|with [{{{diff}}} this edit]}} to [[:{{{1}}}]]|{{#if:{{{diff|}}}|, as you did with [{{{diff}}} this edit]}}}}
The main difference is we can also add an optional link to the reverted diff to the message. Some Wikipedia tools (such as VandalProof) and some bots (like AntiVandalBot) add a diff to their warning message, so why can't we? Should we do it? --AAA!(AAAA)06:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, should we have people wasting their time copying and pasting the diff when they can hit save and continue vandal fighting? The article parameter is enough if you're going to do it manually. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 12:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Really nice one! I'm not sure this can be put on the Article space (I am a bit lost on the rules about userboxes). Anyway I put it on my page at {{User:Lucasbfr/user uw}}. If someone is too lazy to put it elsewhere feel free to use this address :) -- lucasbfrtalk13:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Template link (I've moved your user subpage, Lucasbfr, as I think it's better off in the template namespace). Anyway, since we now have 2 WikiProject userboxes, should we scrap one, or just keep them both? --AAA!(AAAA)14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Grumpy ol bugga alert - I like the old one, just cos I don't like the brackets round the Info image and I don't like white user boxes. So If you don't mind I'll be I'll be happy in a club of my own and if you want to get rid of the box move it to my userspace. Cheers muchly Khukri20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have often ran into situations where an user needs to be warned about copyright infringement and that the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place. There don't appear to be any templates to directly communicate this. The {{uw-copyright}} template, to the contrary, encourages them to spend time at rewriting the content or licensing it under the GFDL, which could be a violation of other Wikipedia policies, often NPOV, attribution and notability. -- intgr14:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with you, the last sentence of the template states that the article needs to follow Wikipedia policies (in the case you provided a Article parameter, this templates changes a lot when you add this parameter). We could put this sentence in all cases maybe? (though I fear the template might get a bit too lengthy) If the article has nothing to do here in the first place, I would personally use the {{uw-create}} series. -- lucasbfrtalk14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like there are two separate issues: the copyright violation and a content issue (POV or whatever), and it's difficult to address multiple issues with a single template. The copyvio is almost always the more serious issue, so I suggest using the copyright warning and adding a note, with an appropriate link to policy, about whatever the other concern may be.--Kubigula(talk)16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I now realize that the short version of the template is much better for cases like this. The template's behavior is, however, inconsistent with other user warnings that merely include an "as you did to article X" notice when a parameter is specified. Hence why I didn't even know about the short version of the template. The {{copyvio}} template currently mentions {{nothanks-web}} which is equivalent to the long version of uw-copyright. Any thoughts on improving this? -- intgr11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is an issue, but I didn't see how to reconciliate both behaviours and keep the number of templates to a reasonable amount. On the other hand, when you warn someone about an issue important enough to get him banned at second strike, I think you should explain to him what to do to contest or fix the problem if that was done in good faith. If it is vandalism, I personally use the {{uw-create}} series. -- lucasbfrtalk13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Lobbuss has created the above warning with regard to language difference changes in Hebrew along a similar line to British English to American English. Question, even though this is English wikipedia these sorts of issues are going to arise from time to time, do we create one warning that wanrs against changing from one language variation to the other or are we going to have warnings for every variation of Kazakh for instance. I have personally have no probs with the warning itself though I have told the editor I feel it's a bit wordy, but what I think needs to be discussed is wher do we stand on if we have to create half a dozen warnings for essentially the same offence. Cheers Khukri16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that there's a message above the template saying it's not consensus means that it shouldn't be used. Also, if we had this type of thing for every language, there would be so many. I also don't think this should be in the uw- space since it's not consensus, and since one of the points in the templates notice is that we've reviewed it, the fact that it's not consensus isn't good. The templates starting with uw- should be carefully reviewed and fit the guidelines of Wikipedia. This doesn't fit the guidelines. We created this new system to keep it clean, organized, and useful. Let's keep it that way. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:UTM / Single-level templates / warnings
The table in this section contradicts with table at the end of info of templates from this table. E.g. iv-canvass is not mentioned there. iv-english is placed in warnings here but in notices there, etc. I think that you know better mechanism to edit tables in templates info than edit each of them individually, so I don't dare to change them.--212.30.154.14621:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Where is the warning on self-reverted vandalism?
Anons quite frequently revert themselves immediately, leaving the version with the obscenity or the greeting to their girlfriend in the page history. This is still behavior that should be discouraged, if only because it is a cost for the servers and is likely to grow into lasting vandalism. There used to be a template for this, but WP:UTM doesn't have it now. Where is it? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There are currently several user warning templates that are not applicable to all situations one would expect them to be, due to their wording that assumes certain things. Two cases I can think of right now:
The uw-npov# templates tell the user not to add "their personal commentary"; however, the NPOV policy also covers biased information that is favored by some larger entities, e.g. "official bios", which is arguably more important.
The uw-spam# warnings tell the user not to add external links; however, excessive internal linking, creation of spam articles and various other behaviors (WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer) are also "spam", and there are no templates that directly address these cases.
Any thoughts on improving the coverage of the templates while not reducing their clarity? -- intgr12:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposal for a new UW Template
Per further discussion with the IRC user I referred to in this proposal, I have decided to Withdraw this proposal, in favour of a better suggestion. Further details will be posted here later.Thor Malmjursson00:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I wish to propose a new UW Template, from a discussion I had on IRC this morning concerning a personal attack upon myself as a user. I am Gay, and I have been subjected a couple of times to attacks based on my sexuality, once where my whole userpage and talk page were covered with the {{User gay}} template, and another yesterday everning where a message was left on my talk page headed "Yuck", and asking If I really WAS gay. What I would like to do as part of WP:NPA is to create a specific UW template for homophobic personal attacks.
My reasoning is that if a user is going to attack another because of their sexuality, repeated NPA warnings of this nature need to be noted individually as part of WP:NPA, since if they are going to attack a person based on their sexuality, then the possibility is there that they may also have a go at vandalising or attacking other articles, such as Homosexuality. The proposal is to create a template worded as follows:
Your recent edit to <name of page/userpage> included language deemed to be inappropriate and/or offensive to persons of alternate sexual orientation. [[Homophobic]] abuse or use of Homophobic language is not tolerated under [[WP:NPA]] and is also considered [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]]. Please consider apologising for these remarks, since future breaches may involve administrative intervention. Your co-operation would be welcomed. ~~~~
I would place this template as {{subst:uw-homophobia}}
Your comments and thoughts on this proposal are welcome. If passed, I would need assistance to prepare the template, since I am kinda dumb when it comes to template building. Thanks
The template you refer to does not look strong enough for a warning on NPA. I still think something like the one I propose would stand to get the message over a little harder. Having the basic LGBT vandalism template doesn't come to cover NPA Attacks. Thor Malmjursson20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Unintended consequences...
Perhaps projects such as this promote feelings elitism and specialness; it seems there may be better ways to keep Wikipedia orderly and civil without having such things as "Police" and "warnings". On Wikiversity they use "custodians", for example. --Remi22:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not arguing against the Wikiversity approach, but can you clarify why you think warnings promote elitism? Also note that most editors who have a legitimate interest in improving the encyclopedia rarely get warnings. And when they do, the first level of warnings do not say anything discouraging. -- intgr22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposal for new Incivility Template
Further to my recent posts above, the discussion has turned away from specific templates for Homophobia, since this would require the creation of many other templates, dealing with Sexism, Racism, Ageism, etc; and towards a new layered template regarding general Incivility.
The template would be arranged in 4 layers, uw-incivil-1, uw-incivil-2, uw-incivil-3 and uw-incivil-4im.
The purpose of each layer would be to make a stronger warning than the last, as exists with other templates, or for severe incivility, you could go straight to uw-incivil-4im, which would be a "One strike and you're out" template, i.e This is your first and only warning. The next time you behave in an incivil manner on Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
The other layers would obviously decrease in strength down to one which is civil, and does not break Don't bite the newcomers. The proposed wording for example, at the first level would be: Thank you for editing Wikipedia. Your recent comments were seen as being impolite, and have therefore been removed. Please read WP:CIVIL to look at our civility standards for this site. Thank you. ~~~~
Other wording for the remianing templates is welcomed, as are your comments on this issue. This proposal is a joint proposal, made by Iceflow and provisionally seconded by prior discussion, by Intgr.
The reason I think a new template is necessary is that the current uw-npa templates only address cases where a user is attacking an editor in particular; uw-defamatory only addresses cases where the user text defames some non-editor in particular; however, there don't appear to be templates for warning about general insults, towards a minority group or otherwise. -- intgr15:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The uw-npa series addresses attacks toward a specific editor. It doesn't address other people or groups of people. Maybe the npa shpuld be slightly altered and made in to a new template series like this? -- Hdt83Chat19:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other people . Please be civil when you are interacting with others. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Hdt83Chat19:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I agree with some of the points made at this discussion - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#A concern. Hate speech is vandalism and we should treat it like vandalism. Trying to direct people who make these kind of attacks to civility guidelines or educate them is a waste of time and just feeds trolling.--Kubigula(talk)22:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
We really need some standardized sockpuppet block templates. {{Sockblock}} is very ugly and does not handle cases when the sockpuppetry is proven because it lists the user talk page as a suspected sockpuppet. {{Uw-block3}} is inadequate because I believe that consensus is that we do not delete the user pages of socks, but replace them with a sockpuppet template and a link to the evidence. Therefore, I am proposing the templates below:
{{Uw-suspsockblock}} for cases where there is no proof but strong suspicion, needs a time,
{{Uw-checkuserblock}} for cases where proof is obtained through a CheckUser request, needs a link to the case and a time in case the sock is an IP,
{{Uw-sspblock}} for cases where sockpuppetry was proven at WP:SSP, needs a link to the case and a time in case the sock is an IP,
{{Uw-provensockblock}} for cases where proof is obtained in some other fashion (e.g. an off-wiki message board post, email, or an on-wiki admission)
These templates already exist. The table below is a brief summary of the main usages; see the template documentation for more. The 'evidence' parameter can be used for any page, including a Suspected sock puppets discussion.
I guess I was not clear. I was asking for stuff appropriate for the talk page and not the user page. For example, you would place {{Indefblockeduser}} on a vandal's userpage, but you would use {{Vandalblock}} (which has no comparable standardized form because {{Uw-vblock}} has no facilities for cleanly noting indef blocks including the required category) for that moron's talk page. Jesse Viviano19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The relevant information pages are already linked inline, so the only real difference I see would be writing "you" instead of "This user". Couldn't these templates be used on the talk page? —{admin} Pathoschild 20:01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think we need separate templates if they're just going to be used on user talk pages. The user can just looks at the userpage or the block log. You can have a general one like uw-spblock and have it link to the block log. As for vblock and the other ones, parser functions should be added to include time or indefinitely. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Protection required
Would one of our resident admins mind spending a bit of time semi protecting the following templates that haven't been done yet. Don't worry putting the padlock symbol if you haven't got the time, I'll bosh through them with AWB and sort them all out once you're done.
which looks much better. So could everyone responsible for a template page update their pages to the new version. I'll do all mine and the base template, most probably after my wife has dragged me round the gardeening centre this afternoon. Khukri(talk . contribs) 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Khukri(talk . contribs) 13:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
. But I disagree that this distinction is essential. I only brought it up above in order to prove my point that people don't think about the level definition when they write templates. I think, AGF should be in any template as far as possible; it should not be a distinguishing criterium because it's highly subjective, and I have seen LOTS of fights about just that question. Why not just write: "Your edit does not fit into an encyclopedia", without the blame game? — Sebastian 04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Woodrow Wilson, you will be blocked from editing.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from engaging in a general discussion of the topic in the article page as you did in {{{1}}}. Instead, use the appropriate talk page. Please remember that talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
