Template talk:Test3

Using these templates to track vandals

It would be very useful if the addition of {{test}}, etc. were automatically to put the User in a category of "Vandals to be tracked", so as to generate a list of these people. What happens often enough is that the warnings are ineffectual.

I tried doing this, on the model of {{stub}}, but it doesn't seem to work, maybe because these are User Talk pages that {{test}} is applied to. Is this worth pursuing?

I'm posting this here as well to get maximum visibility, but please centralize responses to the Test Template Talk page.Bill 13:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Header

I added the header Test warn 3 to make the test distinguishable from other text on the discussion page, as well as a count for easy reference of the last {{test}} used. ∞Who?¿? 04:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Header caused problems with editing. I'm trying a hard line and bold text for seperation. Example:

---

Test warn 3

∞Who?¿? 05:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I must say, I did know which testn was which just off by heart... Dan100 (Talk) 16:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

But having seen how they stack up on a talk page, I think it's rather good. Dan100 (Talk) 16:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think most users know them by heart, but they get blended in with other discussion text to easily. This makes them much easier to see and know where exactly the warnings stand. I also change the numbering to "types of warning". ∞Who?¿? 19:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

But sometimes it's necessary to leap straight in with a '3', particularly if the user has a history. Also the discontinue warning header didn't make a lot of sense, and was confusing. What do you mean by "discontinue warning"? -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, having looked at test2 I see what you mean. The problem is that a lot of editors leap straight from "test" to "test3", because "test2" is specifically about nonsense and the user may not be about that. Also to have four test messages means that if you are tailing the same editor on the same article, you have to break the 3 revert rule before you can block the editor from vandalising the article: I normally block on the third edit because by that time the user generally knows that they're vandalising rather than testing. If I hade to wait around for another warning, I am putting myself up for criticism from vandals who know about the 3RR for breaking it myself. Hence missing out the second warning. Hope that sort of makes sense. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yep perfect sense. Discontinue is an overview of what the template says.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I think what you added is sufficient though. I'm done with changing them further, I appreciate everyones comments, and hope that everyone is fine with the hr, if not thats ok too. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 20:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I took that out because you put it in after the ':' so it didn't work properly. Feel free to add it back. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please see updated proposal on Test 2 talk. ∞Who?¿? 08:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox link.

I removed the Sandbox link from the Template. My feeling is that by the time youre using this Template, the edits in question are beyond the stage of potential tests, that's what test1 is for, so by this time there's not as much point having the Sandbox link. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Alteration

Please see Alteration.

Will or may?

I know we need to be forceful, but saying "you will be blocked from editing" can be misleading if it is not applied by an Admin. If a non-Admin uses this message, doesn't it seem like they would be imitating an Admin (a definite no-no)? Because a non-Admin user cannot block them, so there is no guarantee they will be blocked. Thoughts? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

True, but the whole point of the notice is to get the vandal to stop. We want to sound as forceful as possible by the time we reach test3. The notice doesn't specify that the editor leaving the message will be the one doing the blocking, simply that continued vandalism will result in blocking (which it usually does). Offhand, I can't remember any non-admins being censured for leaving a test message. Carbonite | Talk 22:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I was just curious. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed replacement

Too many vandals are not heeding this warning. Perhaps we can replace it with a message that attempts to be more persuasive. A proposed replacement is at template:test3b, which I am currently using. Where ^(talk) 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop sign hand image

Like Template:Blatantvandal and Template:Test4, I think this one should have the stop sign hand as well. It makes it a much more prominent message. —Centrx→talk 07:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree for a template like this that is two whole templates away from a block. I think that the images are that much extra bandwidth and don't really have as much of an impact as that huge orange box at the top of the screen anyway. JYolkowski // talk 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, it is a template for vandalism. This is not the test template. —Centrx→talk 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the stop sign image in- by this time, they've gotten their fair share of warnings... --Tlim7882 08:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Change template

No editor would vandalize. Template user needs to be more honest with self. Just disagrees with the other editor. Foundation could be sue for libel if vandalism acusations are made. Here's a better idea for this template:

I disagree with your edit. Please discuss your edit on the article's talk page: [[Category:User warning templates]]

--Chuck Marean 04:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikimedia could be sued for libel for accusing people of vandalism since, almost all of the time, people who do not work for the wikipedia foundation use this template (Wikimedia has only 3 paid employees). In addition, this template is generally used for obvious vandalism. It would be odd if this template was used after a person, for instance, added profanity to the article. -- Where 05:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is name-calling. Name calling brainwashes the caller into believing it. Look at what happened to Hitler from name-calling--Chuck Marean 19:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good ol' Godwin's Law. --mtz206 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

While I do not know about the Hitler anecdote, looking back, I would agree with you that it is not productive to call vandals "vandals." The link to Wikipedia:Vandalism does not help the vandals at all. How about the following:

Please stop. If you continue to make non-constructive edits, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

or perhaps:

We beg you to stop ruining the hard work of others. Wikipedia is used as a reference by many people, and your vandalism can greatly inconvenience other people. We really hate to do this, but if you continue to make non-constructive edits to Wikipedia, we will have no choice but to block you from editing. If you would like to contribute in a positive fashion, you are welcome to do so. You may find the tutorial to be a useful resource for this.

-- Where 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

lb equiv

lb:Template:Test3 --Briséis 12:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

zh equiv

zh::Template:Test3, please.--Jusjih 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding an image

I noticed one person added an image to their own version of test3. I think I like it. I'll show the two versions:

Normally:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

vs.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

So I propose we add it, to here and test2. What do y'all think? -Patstuart 02:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The image does not seem vertically aligned with the text. Aside from that, it seems fine. Good idea! -- Where 23:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit to template

Could an admin add {{TestTemplatesNotice}} to the template (obviously in a <noinclude> section)? Test0-Test2 have them, and it'd be nice to have this sort of standardized. EVula 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Danke. EVula 18:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved documentation

Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Test3/doc subpage, as recommended in Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to:

Please stop. If you continue to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalize]] pages, {{#if:{{{1|}}}|as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]],}} you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- Template:Test3 (Third level warning) --><noinclude>
{{protected template}}
{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}}
<!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

Thanks. +mwtoews 03:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Luna Santin 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Change

In line with the discussion on Template talk:InvalidAIV, I understand you cant report to AIV after this test has been given. In that case, can the wording of this template be changed? AndrewRT(Talk) 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Icon

{{editprotected}} Could {{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] }}} be added please, as with similar templates. --Rumping 16:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also discussed at Template_talk:Test2#Icon--Rumping 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If we wanted these templates to resemble the newer ones, we would simply redirect them. —David Levy 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we merge this series with uw-vandalism?

I do not see why this exists. First, it should be template:uw-test. Second, there is already a template that does what this template does. UpsandDowns1234 04:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• @UpsandDowns1234: I see you went to deletion before waiting for a response, but this exists because it's the original iteration of the warning templates, dating to 2004. It still exists because not everyone chooses to use the messaging and presentation of the uw series. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)