Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 →

Holy crap

Anyone feeling nice and want to fill me in on what the hell happened here? This used to be a useful table of templates, now I don't even see the standard test templates. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Members from Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings wanted to revise all the warning templates with consistent levels and make all the warnings really neat. Here's a giant talk page and I'm sure there's probably more conversation elsewhere. --WikiSlasher 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh gees, see, WikiProjects should not be replacements for discussion, but rather a collaboration tool. They all have the little I image and ... At least take it to the village pump. WikiProjects can be great, but they can also sometimes get isolated from the rest of us. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all we did, and the signpost, and the admin notice board, and main vandal tools, and the IRC channels, and most of the known RC patrollers. Also would you mind not removing the image on one warning because you don't like it, as you did to {{uw-test2}}. If you want to change how the whole system is setup please discuss it here to remove the image from all of the level 2 warnings not just a one off. Regards ^{Khukri -} 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the earlier revision and I think the second phase (single issue templates) is at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview currently. --WikiSlasher 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is why I hate Wikipedia. You have to look so many damn directions and if you blink for a second this happens. Don't get me wrong, not all of the changes are bad, but holy shit man.. Now because it involves a WikiProject we've got all sorts of lovely ownership issues, and everyone gets all defensive over stupid little stuff. I don't doubt discussion was had about this before, but I doubt it had the attention it needed. "what's that? you want to improve user warnings? oh, whatever, sure, sounds ok" and then people leave it at that, because we don't expect this.

Like I said, not all of the changes are bad, and maybe most of them are good, but it took way too long to find a simple template and when I did it had this little blue icon in it.. (I know the higher level warnings had icons, but that was to get more attention at that level.. if you do it for EACH ONE it defuses the impact).

So before you guys all get pissed off, understand that maybe there is more to discuss here. With bloated watchlists and people doing this and that, don't be surprised when they don't keep up with the latest and greatest in boring user talk templates. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ned, I had no involvement with this project. But its proposals were pretty widely discussed and signposted. Why don't you post to WP:AN/I if you wish to confirm this? The concensus appears to be that new warnings are an improvement. I certainly think so. If you look through these talkpages, concerns with the new templates have been addressed promptly. If you want to propose changes go ahead and do so. I assure you their are no WP:OWN problems around here. Feel free to make suggestions... WJBscribe 08:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've made an ass of myself, but when I saw Template:UsernameAllowed and all those needless little blue icons... and why bother renaming them? A great deal of editors remember these templates by name and don't go back to this page. I do recall people talking about improving the user warnings, but someone is almost always talking about that.. I can't be the only one who finds this a bit bizarre. -- Ned Scott 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After following many of the links and diffs, most of the drastic changes are fairly recent. I do recall most of the other changes taking place, but the ones in the few weeks are a very sharp turn. Again, I must ask, did people actually say that this set of templates is a good idea or that some general changes were a good idea? -- Ned Scott 08:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Maybe I should put a link to the earlier revision on the page until all the different kinds of templates are added. People shouldn't have to sort through the history and you get "hey where are all the old ones?" all the time. Any objections? --WikiSlasher 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The blurb on the project page reads pretty clear to me, and gives a link to the old system. One idea though would be to put a nice information icon next to it to bring it to peoples attention, whaddya reckon? Sorry, in all seriousness it might be an idea to expand that text to say that there are future changes afoot, but there will be no permanent changes made in the near future. ^{Khukri -} 09:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't read the text up the top >_> but the information about that it is revised and where the old warnings can be found does need to be a lot more prominent IMO. --WikiSlasher 09:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict hence disjointed, to Ned above) Not a problem at all, and I agree with your first comment about having to look round the houses for this sort of project. We knew from the outset that there would be editors who hadn't seen the upcoming changes, but we did make a best effort to get the information out there. On the ownership and the project, have no fear, the WP:UW project will be wrapped up, shutdown once the single issue templates are complete, to avoid this very problem. I and many others have been quite insistant, that once these warnings are out there that they are the property of the community or the original WP:UTM. But any changes that are done must be done on a system scale don't just change one at a time, do the whole lot, or we end up with a fragmented system again. On the image, I fully understand some editors don't like them, but this has been discussed about three times over the last four months and it always comes backs to with images. Your point about losing impact, if you issue a warning to a regular editor one warning is usually suffice to bring them back to the talk table. If however it's a vandal, spammer, someone who owns the article, then it doesn't matter how many warnings you put on their talk page, it's just wallpaper. I think the only way you would get them to take any notice of any new warning, is to have a different radioactive lurid colour across each one (that is not a serious proposal). If you look through both here and WP:UW you'll see that radicle changes have been proposed, accepted and implemented. I wouldn't be happy if after all this work we've done it get's set in concrete, it has to evolve and change but as I said before on a system scale not individually. So if you want to change something please by all means propose it. Regards ^{Khukri -} 08:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That feeling of panic is going away.. I really am sorry about my reaction, but this really was quite a shock. Some of this still seems a bit.. off.. I've just seen stuff like this before and how it doesn't always.. aw shit, I'm sorry guys, I really jumped the gun on this one..-- Ned Scott 09:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I will say I think it's a little disruptive to turn {{test4}} (and only test 4) into a redirect before this is all set in stone and what not. I don't always use the preview button when subst'ing a warning template; I'm glad I did in this case, because the template is broken. How come it's only that one that's broken? The other test templates work fine. I'm not a tech wiz so maybe I'm missing something.

Also, how was it decided that typing {{uw-test1}} is better than typing {{test}}? That seems kinda weird. (And on a really trivial note, who decided that we would now be using the British English "vandalise"?)

I'm not upset about any of this, but it's the first I've heard of it and I'm curious. Kafziel ^Talk 19:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely feel that redirecting {{test4}} was a bit premature. The two templates say the same thing, basically, but WP:UW still has a couple of loose ends to tie up. I was also concerned about the excessive length of the template names (not useful during RC patrolling), so shortcuts were established: {{uw-v1}} redirects to {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-t3}} redirects to {{uw-test3}}. You can review and comment upon redirects from current templates at WP:UW/O. Gracenotes^T § 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is sorry that heppened, we've made it pretty clear that no re-directs are to be put in place, until; 1) it seems like on average the community seems happy with the new warnings 2) the single issue templates are completed and 3) that everyone is happy with all the redirects that will be put into place. I've tried to revert it but it's protected, if an admin wouldn't mind please reverting for me please. Most of the questions are answered on the two talk pages, English was discussed and was due to the fact most of the contributing editors were of british english speaking happened this way. No problems if it is changed but as ever we change all of them. The reason for the uw was discussed at length on WP:UW main reason is we knew there would be problems with the new system and wanted to be able to introduce these warnings gently and not with a bang and changing everyone favorite warning over night. Cheers ^{Khukri -} 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin note Would an admin please revert the redirect put on {{test4}} please as per above. Thanks ^{Khukri -} 12:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Done (Template_talk:Test4#Redirect_to_Uw-vandalism4). Λυδαcιτγ 03:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Users won't switch to new templates

I have noticed that many users are still using the old templates. Some even list the old templates in their user page or a subpage thereof. I have heard back from some of them on the matter. One told me that he liked the old messages better. How do we get them to switch? Will (Talk - contribs) 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

By making them as easy to use as the old ones. It might just be me, but when I tried to use the new ones I couldn't make it work, so I just continued on with the old ones which have always gotten the point across I might add. Peace, -- The Hybrid 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The {{uw-v1}} shortcut is a good one. It might help to have shorter versions of the other templates. Also as programs like Vandalproof are reprogrammed to use the new templates, they will become more common. I have found that most people are using the new templates when I post vandalism warnings and there has been recent past vandalism. How about a clear message about the new templates in the next edition of The Wikipedia Signpost? WJBscribe 01:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do users have to switch to the new templates? Don't get me wrong, I am warming up to the new ones.. but I don't see the big deal in keeping the old templates and just not promoting them anymore (they wouldn't be on display or recommended, etc., just ignored, sort of). -- Ned Scott 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is the best way I would like to see the old templates go. I don't want to force people to change, that's not what this is all about, I would like them to retire into obsolence gracefully with only a few die hards using them, as we perfect the new system. There is no rush to retire the old system, and as one of the instigators of the new system I personally will fight to keep the old system in place, not deleted, or redirected for the near future. It's too early, changes like this cannot be done over night. People don't like change if they don't see the benefits of it or if it creates more work for them. The work we can regulate by creating better redirects, and the benefits we just have to shout a wee bit louder about how the community is better of. ^{Khukri -} 12:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer this, as I have gotten used to the old templates. I'm not too excited about these perfectly good templates being replaced with what is essentially the same stuff. -- The Hybrid 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the new templates have better wording. It would help if people used Firefox 2.0 so they would notice that "Vandalize" is spelled with a Z. Other than that, it should help. It also helps that there are fewer templates to deal with. The old list was rather long. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's "vandalise" in British English, though. Not a spelling error. Heimstern Läufer 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't "get" us to switch. Why are you assuming that everyone should switch? If people like the new warnings, they'll switch, and if they don't, they don't have to. Of course, it doesn't help that every single script tool still uses the old ones. -Amark moo! 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I spoke to Betacommand a while back about this and he was looking at an update for VP, but I haven't spoken to him in a couple of weeks ^{Khukri -} 12:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For Twinkle, I have only the uw-warnings. _→AzaToth 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it a WikiProject that invented these new warnings? If they want to have the new warnings be the main ones from now on fine, but why should anyone be forced to switch? We should have our choice. Peace, -- The Hybrid 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh

I'm not crazy about this new layout system. I just blocked someone and came here to find the equivalent to {{Test5}}... but it was nowhere to be found, and resorted to using Test5. Is there an equivalent in the new system? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See {{uw-block1}} _→AzaToth 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to add suggested new equivalents to the documentation of the 'old' templates? That way anyone who wanted to use the new template but didn't know what it was could find it easily, but nothing is forced upon those that are happy using the old. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We're doing it at the moment, with the new overview page over at WP:UW, but it'll be a couple of weeks before it's out hence the prompt replies everyone is giving to editors questions. ^{Khukri -} 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all with the new system you wouldn't block anyone for carrying out an editing test, hence the old test only go up to level three, after that if we call it for what it is and use {{uw-vandalism4}} or any of the many redirects that have been put in place to make it easier, such as {{uw-v4}}.

For the block there are only three blocks of varying severity. Once an editor has received warnings about what they've perceived to have done wrong, it doesn't matter what's written on the block they should already know their infringement, through the previous warnings that have been issued, hence the boilerplate blocked templates. However we fully realise that warning aren't a one size fits all, so the warnings can be given greater detail along the lines of;

{{subst:uw-block1|time=a lifetime|reason=being a horrible meany, and picking on my article}}

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a lifetime in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for being a horrible meany, and picking on my article. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} .

Hope this helps. Cheers ^{Khukri -} 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RC script templates

I use Voice of All's RC script for my RCP (I'm doing some now) and I use the tabs at the top of the edit page to add warinings to Talk pages so I don't have to remember the templates for each level but I've noticed that the tool is placing the old templates on pages. Is there something I need to do to change to the new templates? Sorry if this is elsewhere and I've missed it. Thanks --Farosdaughter 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You should probably ask Voice of All. --WikiSlasher 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No original research warning?

I just noticed that the new grid doesn't contain a template explaining WP:NOR to new users. There's {{uw-unsourced1}} and its brethren, but sometimes there are cases when a user adds blatant original research, and sourcing isn't really the issue. {{uw-unsourced1}} doesn't contain a link to the WP:NOR policy. If we don't explain that to users, they're likely to return with "evidence" supporting their pet theories, without realizing that the "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" is just as problematic.

I found an example of this today, and came here to find the relevant template. I ended up using the old {{User-OR}}, because nothing on the new grid really applied. It would be great if we had something like that in the new system. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We haven't got that far yet. There is already a {{nor}} and {{nor2}} have a look here. What I'll most probably do is recommend {{nor2}} for Tfd make {{nor}} a single issue template, and then as per the mos warnings, any further problems you use the unsourced warnings. Hope that helps. ^{Khukri -} 12:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

More notification templates

Created for the RFC folks:

{{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}}

{{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}

{{subst:UsernameAllowed}}

{{subst:ArticleConcern|article name|nature of concern}}

{{subst:ArticleDiscussion|article name}}

{{subst:ArticleResult|article name|outcome of RFC}}

{{subst:ConductConcern|nature of concern}}

{{subst:ConductDiscussion}}

{{subst:ConductResult|outcome of RFC}}

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".

However, feel free to borrow whatever you find helpful. Ben 09:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ben, can you add them to the new overview page please so I don't forget them. Cheers muchly. ^{Khukri -} 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Icon should float left

I have noticed that the icon in many of the new templates like {{uw-test1}} is inline. Unfortunately, it is taller than the text on my page. I think we should make it float to improve readability. Just a thought. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Would it work with multiple templates on top of each other (especially short ones like {{Uw-joke4}}? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Audacity (talk • contribs) 02:01, February 6, 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not directly. However, if we put the whole thing into a div and make the margin-left a parameter expressed in em... Will (Talk - contribs) 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we make the icon turn off? Even if the majority never used the option, and the icon was on by default, I think it would be a nice option to have. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wooooaaaaaahhhhhhhhh there tiger, please read the talk pages on WP:UW before going anywhere near the div's. We've already been round the houses with tables and divs, and after shed loads of messing around, because no-one was happy, ended up getting rid of them. The reason the image was reduced from 30px to 25 was to try and minimise the space problem. Have a look at any template and look at the evolution it's gone through with this. ^{Khukri -} 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this would help acheive what you are after (from this week's Signpost):

It is now possible to vertically align images by using the new image keywords baseline, sub, super, top, text-top, middle, bottom, and text-bottom. This will generally only be useful for mixing images in with text: it cannot vertically position anything relative to a containing table cell or the like, only relative to text's em box. The exact meanings of all the codes can be found at the World Wide Web Consortium's website (note that the percentage, length, and inherit properties are not available). (Simetrical, T10535, r19720)

→Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it might work, does someone want to have a go, you can use this template here and copy one of the big templates in to give it a test. ^{Khukri -} 14:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a play in my sandbox - take a look. There is a 1 pixel difference in the line spacing of the baseline and text-bottom options. The text-bottom gives the larger, but I actually think that that one looks slightly better that the baseline option. If a decision to change is made, it is as simple as adding |baseline (or other option) to the image tag. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Yes please. --Quiddity 19:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Text bottom is almost too high. Too bad there is not a lower option. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The image can be placed lower, but it has an adverse effect on the line spacing - effectively the image must fit into the first line of text. I've added another example to show what I mean. I don't think that it is possible to acheive the appearance you want without floating the image, but it seems that this has already been discarded as an idea. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wording changes

I've made changes to several templates today ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]) to improve wording and tone. Specifically, many came off with an accusatory or angry feel, which could easily leave the wrong impression on newcomers. Others were written overusing the first or second person. Part of those changes were made due to awkward phrasing, but I've also found that warnings are received better when there isn't a feeling of "look at what YOU did" (while still making clear what policy was violated). For example:

Warning A: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions to Banana hammock. However, you should be aware that the edits that you made were in violation of our policies concerning inappropriate undergarments. Please be careful in your future edits. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction if you'd like some help with editing. Thank you.

Warning B: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions to Banana hammock. However, Wikipedia policy concerning inappropriate undergarments does not allow us to accept edits of this nature. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction if you'd like some help with editing. Thank you.

The difference is subtle, but the latter warning doesn't have an air of finger pointing.

At any rate, I realize that some editors may have preferred to talk over changes of this nature beforehand, something that I didn't think about until I had made several. If I've stepped on any toes, I apologize. I'd be glad to talk over any changes that others find objectionable. Tijuana Brass 06:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Personally I like the new wording of the level1 templates. However I personally think the level3 and 4 should have strong wording (you can be blocked after receiving one of those). I am speaking about {{uw-vandalism4im}}, and generally about the "you will be blocked if you continue" wording at level3. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On the vandalism4im, I removed the "will not be tolerated" sentence, since it didn't appear in any of the other 4im warnings. Given that it's for use with someone who should already be well aware of both what they're doing and what it leads to, it felt over the top to me. Of course, if anybody disagrees and reverts, I won't start an edit war over it. Not looking to test out the own templates... Tijuana Brass 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

VP1.31

Questions's been raised about the vandal tools not having the new warnings Betacommand has kindly sorted Vandalproof 1.3 for us please see here. ^{Khukri -} 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AUTO

How should thouse been talken cared about? _→AzaToth 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a single issue would cover it plus it would usually get tagged with CSD A7 anyway. ^{Khukri -} 19:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good faith edits to own usr page while not logged in

To me, to be "good faith," {{uw-upv1}} must ask if the user forgot to login. It doesn't. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see problems in phrasing it. For example, the warning can always be given to a registered member, and asking him to login wouldn't make much sense. How about In case you are the user himself, please login under that account and proceed to make the changes? Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mos3 warning

The assertion that someone would be blocked for using poor style and is otherwise a good editor is ludicrous. I think {{uw-mos3}} ought to be changed to reflect that it's possible that someone would be blocked for bad style rather than the standard "will be blocked" statement. i kan reed 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion it's ludicrous. The problem is your assumption that a level3 warning would be directed at a good editor, which obviously will not happen...... straight off. It will be used mainly in conjunction with a number of other single issue warning templates, for example, someone who continually changes colour to color when the it's about a British subject matter. There will also be a number of other templates to cover lang, date, royalty, etc. ^{Khukri -} 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's ludicrous in my opinion as well. Having one template to advise users how the Manual of Style works is good. Having a series of warnings for not following it is legalistic feature creep. If someone has taken the time to explain the problem to an editor and they refuse to follow the policy, it's time to switch to an alternative template, i.e. {{uw-vandalism3}}, since they're now making edits that they understand to be problematic. Tijuana Brass 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And on a side note, it's best to assume that they're all good editors, even the ones who get warnings. Many are people who are trying to make positive contributions that just aren't aware of our long list of policies. Careless warnings bite newcomers far too often when the editors who place them don't WP:AGF as well. Just a thought. Tijuana Brass 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And there's me arguing against 4im warnings. I give up ...... ^{Khukri -} 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN warnings

I suggest that we remove this series of templates. It's always been my belief that warning templates are primarily intended for use on the talk pages of new editors who may not be familiar with Wikipedia policy. Rather than having to spend time writing out an individual explanation to each new user, a template is used as a time-saving substitute. In the majority of cases, that's all well and good, since the average warning is used on the talk page of an editor who probably isn't aware of the relevant policies. As the warnings ramp up, they also provide a consistent, easy to find way of tracking an editor's past to determine any necessary administrative action. Great. That's a good thing.

However, some policies are a little more advanced, and WP:OWN is one of them. For starters, you'll rarely see a new, inexperienced editor exercising clear, sustained article ownership; it's a lot more likely that they'll constantly blank out or revert the parts they don't like, an activity which is covered under other policies. Ownership is a more complex issue, and it's one that you really only find among longer term editors who may already understand the policy well. It's insulting (and inappropriate) in a case like that to throw a vague warning template onto their talk page, and the idea of such templates escalating in levels seems silly to me.

It really comes down to assuming good faith on the part of the warning admins. If an editor has some time behind them and a history of positive contributions, they deserve a personal message on their talk page describing the issue at hand (which they're likely already aware of in some manner). If that fails, the proper course of action is to seek mediation, not add warning templates, which just tend to create bad feelings. Put yourself in the shoes of the warned user: if you had spent considerable effort maintaining an article that was important to you in a way you felt was fair and neutral, wouldn't it rub you the wrong way if you found {{Uw-own1}} on your talk page rather than a more personal explanation?

I was inclined to start an MfD for these templates, but thought I'd bring it up here first to see what other editors have to say. Tijuana Brass 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

These have only just been done by Squirepants101, thread just up the page here. ^{Khukri -} 23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

As noted here, there cannot be four opportunities for copyright infringement explicitly allowed for in the warning system. Copyright infringement is illegal and strictly forbidden, and allowing for it beyond two times after two warnings means that anyone using a four-tiered template system, rather than blocking the user or reporting the user to administrators, would not be taking appropriate action to prevent content from being posted to Wikipedia illegally, and having a four-tiered template system on this page would mean that Wikipedia is encouraging this tepid, inappropriate response. Petty vandalism is not illegal, so if people think four warnings are appropriate in some case of it, they can spend their time giving these four warnings, but there can be no system along the lines of "We will allow you to edit Wikipedia illegally four times, with our full knowledge and despite explicit warnings, before doing anything effective about it." There is a similar problem with the defamatory/libel warnings, which should be reduced, but at least in that case it is much more likely that the "defamation" posted is merely scurrilous accusations, not injurious libel. —Centrx→talk • 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, and thanks for responding. If you don't mind however the CV warning might get changed and have a few mods to bring it in line with alot of the other single issue template. ^{Khukri -} 20:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Who ever did the warnings table with autobiography and 3rr in it (I can't be arsed looking through the history) looks good. And on that note wanna move the copyright stuff from above into there. I think it would be the perfect place for it. ^{Khukri -} 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Uw-autobiography

The new warning template {{uw-autobiography}} warns users that autobiographical articles may be sent to Articles for deletion. Shouldn't the actual warning be that the article may be speedily deleted? --Metropolitan90 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I just copied from WP:AUTO, it probably need a rewrite. _→AzaToth 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Since 3RR is now a single template, shouldn't the original uw- templates be deleted or redirected? --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@ 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep ^{Khukri -} 08:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Uw-test1}} does not welcome the user

Ok, that seems ridiculous, but this is the only of the usual (vand test delete spam) level 1 templates that does not welcome the user (it is often the first message left on a talk page). Can anyone think of a wording that does not repeat Wikipedia twice? -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Welcome, and thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia" should be okay. We don't really need to say what site we're welcoming them to, since that should be obvious. Although I never understood why we're thanking them for disrupting articles in the first place. We never say "thanks for not experimenting with Wikipedia" to the new users who don't vandalize articles, so why do we show more appreciation to the ones that do? But I digress. Kafziel ^Talk 13:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

More digression ... I actually don't mind the ones who put in something ridiculous or obscene & then take it out in the next edit. I've hand-written notes to them saying "thanks for experimenting, and for cleaning up after yourself; here's more info blah blah". --lquilter 20:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kafziel - I think your proposed language is good. I went ahead and made the change.--Kubigula (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Template for indicating that an IP is non-portable (thus, probably not shared)?

After I check a vandal's IP to determine whether it is a school IP or the like, I would like to record the information on the user's talk page. I can do this when the IP appears to be a shared or public IP, but there is no standard method for recording a registration that indicates "ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE." I would like to have a template for annotating an IPvandal's talk page to indicate that the IP is not shared. Essentially, this would be the opposite of Template:ISP, Template:SharedIPEDU, and similar templates.--orlady 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Summary2}}

Why is Summary2 no longer listed on WP:WARN? It's very useful when people leave inaccurate edit summaries. Thanks. 18:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It'll change shortly, but it's not going to go anywhere in the short term. There are about 8 templates currently for different edit summary warnings. One or two will be left at the end. Cheers ^{Khukri -}

"Please use English" template

In case anyone is interested, I have created a polite template reminding users to use the English language in their talk page comments. You can view and edit the template at Template:Useenglish. —Psychonaut 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can this not be merged into {{Notenglish0}} or {{UE}}, both of these I have proposed to replace with a single issue template of simply {{english}}. Cheers ^{Khukri -} 08:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be so merged, though the resulting template would probably be a bit wordy. I think it's best to have separate templates for mainspace and discussion space issues. Many users are aware that English is to be used in articles, but they believe it is OK to use other languages on talk pages (particularly user talk pages). A warning specifically regarding use of foreign languages on talk pages, and drawing the user's attention to the talk page guidelines, would be less confusing. —Psychonaut 12:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem but the template name should reflect whether it is directed at a talk page or if it is directed at article space. These templates are not used that often, and we want to make it easier for editors to be able to pick the template off the shelf then read it, instead of reading half a dozen before he can post the correct one. I personally think we can be quite ambiguous with the warning and write it so that it covers both article and talk space, but just my opinion. Cheers ^{Khukri -} 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-test2}} too harsh for first-time self-reverted edits?

I occasionally see new users making a test edit and then reverting it themselves. I'd have used {{test-self}} back in the day; I note that we're supposed to use {{uw-test2}} but that seems a bit harsh; I'd like to assume good faith in such cases. Would it be possible to have an alternate to {{uw-test1}} that mentions that they reverted the test themselves? –EdC 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I agree that test2 is too harsh for a self-reverted edit. I am unaware of any mandates about template use, other than (barring unusual circumstances) 1-4 is the recommended progression. Do you recall where you read that test2 is recommended in self revert situations?--Kubigula (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Above, under #What about {{test-self}}?. –EdC 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes - under my nose. It is a bit tricky; test1 doesn't make sense because we haven't reverted their edit and test2 is too harsh (they should get more of an assumption of good faith for self-reverting, not less). So, we could retain self-test and give in to template creep, rewrite test1 to cover self-revert situations, or some third option that I haven't thought of.--Kubigula (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see an alternative to a {{uw-selftest1}} template. Obviously, that template would transition to the uw-test* for levels 2 and above. I'd propose content like:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for experimenting, and for reverting your edits. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. In future, please do not experiment on article pages; instead, use the sandbox.

EdC 01:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Add a single issue template to the overview over at WP:UW/overview, it doesn't need the uw- just call it {{selftest}} for now. Only needs one warning, as anything else is vandalism. ^{Khukri -} 08:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

{{selftest}} already exists as a redirect to {{test-self}}, so I edited the latter template to use the wording suggested above. Should I amend WP:UW/overview? –EdC 10:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep good stuff, add both of them, stating one is redirected. I personally would prefer {{selftest}} with everything re-directing there, but it's semantics really has the same end result. Cheers ^{Khukri -} 12:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks! –EdC 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Private Information

Whatever happened to the templates relating to the revealing of private information ({{Pinfo4}}? Ekantik ^talk 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, it's still there, in fact it's even mentioned above in this talk page, but it's not displayed on the project page. However it will change in the next couple of weeks to a single issue template of pinfo or maybe uw-pinfo, depending on what everyone wants. Check over at the WP:UW and you'll see all the upcoming changes. ^{Khukri -} 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks for the clear explanation. Ekantik ^talk 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Appropriateness of using templates

I'd like to ask about the appropriateness of using templates. I have heard a user complaining of mistreatment after being blocked for various violations on the WP:VANDALISM page; he claims that he made no violations and was restoring what he claimed to be bad-faith edits relating to WP:VANDALISM to their original state, reported the incident at WP:AN/I and placed the {{Blatantofficialpolicyvandal-n}} template (diff) on the offender's talk=page. I notice now that this template has been deprecated, but no matter. An administrator/Arbitrator with checkuser and oversight privileges saw the report at WP:AN/I and blocked this user for "improper use of vandalism warnings" among other things. This whole issue appears to be something of a comlicated and tragic mess which has led to disputes at WP:VAND, but I would like to ask if it is true that one can be blocked for "improper use of vandalism warnings"? What is "improper" use and who decides what is "improper"? I regularly place warning templates on user talk-pages if I spot them engaging in some suspicious/forbidden activity but I would not like to be blocked whimsically just because someone decides I have "improperly" warned someone. What to do? Ekantik ^talk 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the full block summary is "incivility, edit warring, inappropriate use of javascript rollback for good faith edits, and disruptive, improper use of vandalism warnings". --WikiSlasher 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all the template wasn't created here, the editor has been spoken to at some length for it's issue and subsequent actions. Now for the question about being blocked for improper use, certainly, as it it is just another form of vandalism and disruptive behaviour. Now would you get blocked for it realistically for a one, or maybe two off mistake highly unlikely. I'm not going to discuss the actions of User:John254 in detail as that would be unfair, but I think it oversimplifies that situation to say a block was applied whimsically. And I also think that yes mistakes are made, but so long as we can realise when we have screwed up then it need never get to blocks. On this issue though, I did find this template whilst I was organising the warnings category that might be of interestto you {{Vww}}. Regards ^{Khukri -} 08:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Khukri and Wikislasher, but I was just using a recent example (that is being discussed over at WP:VAND to highlight the issue. What I was really asking about is the appropriateness of using templates. I appreciate {{Vww}} and its importance because vandalism (in particular) is a very serious issue in itself and accusations must not be made lightly. I would personally consider myself "well read" in WP:VAND (having included one or two categories of it myself) and so I would not personally place templates whimsically unless I'm absolutely sure that it is vandalism. Most of the time it is, but what if I end up blocked because someone decides I am wrong? Not very fair is it?

So the question is that, apart from vandalism warnings (which need care), is it generally appropriate to place templates on user talk-pages for whatever issue? Ekantik ^talk 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinion alert (mine) and rambling commentary. I think we are getting into realms of mind screwing philosophy, along the lines of a wikipedia is for anyone to edit so why can't they edit it how they feel, or the contradictions that are WP:IAR or WP:BOLD but stay within the rules of the community. Yes it is appropriate but it has to be regulated and do we have that, I believe we do. With around 1100 admin and 3/4 I would say are active, and the dedicated non-admins in various projects such as these, the system seems to go along fairly well. I think with the amount of people who now patrol, have watch listed, or just monitor the recent changes, talk pages and various noticeboards that problems with templates being mis-issued get picked up pretty quickly. I think even though we have templates at hand that we should not lose personal interaction with other editors where possible. These templates shouldn't been seen as a race to try and get as many warnings out as we can, and that where possible we should leave personal messages. Yes there are exceptions as you mentioned I believe spam, deletion, copyright and a few other should come into this as well. But I intensly dislike terms along the lines of vandal fighting or other such crusade phrases, it makes it a competition. I saw recently on an RfA that someone has nominated with the criteria of 150 successful reports to WP:AIV. This sounds like the stickers airmen used to put on the side of their aircraft for number of successful kills. Anyway the community wants templates to succintly word the issues they wish to discuss, some feel it does more to inflame the situation, but the eventual onus comes back to the posting editor. That they are posted correctly, in an appropriate manner, and not forgetting that one size does not fit all and that where possible leave a personal message. Regards ^Khukri 19:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

{{tltt}} tags

Should we start adding in the tooltip codes yet, or wait until this is more settled? FYI, the tltt code adds a tooltip help box when you hover over the first set of curly braces. Example: {{tltt|This is a sample tooltip}} Hersfold ^(talk|work) 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would personally suggest waiting a couple of weeks. A change like this will not be easy to implement and the work we've done certainly isn't set in concrete and is liable to further modification. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

*salutes* Will do! Hersfold ^(talk|work) 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The page has been up for a few weeks now and I haven't noticed any major changes over the past several days, so I've added the tltt tags to the usual warnings box and will probably expand that code to the rest of the project once I get time. In order to make it have the same appearance as it did previously, I enclosed each template code in <tt></tt> tags. If you edit the page, try to leave those intact so the table doesn't get messed up. Good news now is that we have little hints on what each template says for those of us who don't use popups. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, and thanks. Are you going to add the tags to the table below? Cheers ^{Khukri -} 15:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, once I get time. I'll probably contact Sebastian about this as well - he was the one who initially started the effort on the old Test Templates page. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me! We could move the <tt></tt> into the template. It seems so far it is only used in WP:UTM anyway, and it doesn't hurt if there's two encapsulated tt tags. The "tt" then nicely has a double meaning. Thoughts? — Sebastian 06:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we kept discussing it on your talk so much I forgot to check here. There's only a few more sections left to do - Levels 2-4im of the actual warnings, and a few of the talk page notifications. IMO, the notifications are more urgent since they have different meanings - most of the warnings you can probably figure out based on what's already there. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Personally, I like {{tltt2}}. It's a bit less annoying, and doesn't diminish functionality in any way; plus, we can prefix the span title with the default text. (Span title, for example, as "Template:Uw-vandalism1: Your unhelpful edit has been removed" Does anyone have any arguments in favor of either? Gracenotes^T § 02:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the way Sebastian set up the {{tltt}} code today, you can add an unlimited number of parameters. {{tltt2}} only permits a single parameter. While I don't think that really applies right now, {{tltt}} would permit us to add more templates which have those additional parameters. Also, using a single template lets us create a more uniform format, making it easier to add more templates at a later date. I created tltt2, but Sebastian's modifications to the original template provide a better setup, IMO. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this: {{uw-vandalism4im|Kitten|subst=subst:}}

It also allows for tooltips above links, on all browsers. The source code is

{{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}}

What do you think? Gracenotes^T § 15:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this could work. Sebastian's away for a day or two, so I'll go incorporate this into the template code. Be right back. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 15:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I had thought initially that the people working on this template didn't want to have the tooltip over the link, but when I looked at {{tltt}}'s documentation, I saw that this was a bug, rather than intentional. So this modification should take care of that. (What I would have otherwise suggested would be to enlarge the size of the brackets, which in retrospect, appears a bit silly.) Gracenotes^T § 15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, it looks like the tooltips work everywhere in Firefox and maybe in newer versions of Internet Explorer, but not IE 6. I don't get it. Anyway, I've incorporated your version, and it appears to be working. Thanks! Hersfold ^(talk|work) 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IE6 and CSS were never the best of friends. Gracenotes^T § 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All templates now have the {{tltt}} code installed! Update complete! Hersfold ^(talk|work) 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[Gracenotes claps] Bravo! 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary messages

In my experience, there are three kinds of people who do not use edit summaries:

1. new people who do not know any better
2. lazy people who cannot be bothered to fill them out
3. sociopaths who are indifferent to social norms and/or the feelings of frustration they cause in others

Looking at WP:UTM, it seams to me that all of the talk templates on this topic ({{Summary}}, {{Summary2}}, and {{Editsummary}}) are geared for type-1 people. Have there been any thoughts about creating "please use edit summaries!" templates for type-2 or type-3 people? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The first two normally will be persuaded by a gentle reminder, and we can also add a nice note to it saying if you find that you occasionally forget, that you can check a box in your preferences to give you a prompt. The third however if you heap warning upon warning and they will ignore you in general. I personally haven't seen this, but if someone is ignoring this then they are as often as not up to mischief of other sorts anyway. My question would be where would you go with someone who doesn't provide summaries you'd give them a level 1, 2 then a 3, then where? Certainly not WP:AIV, not WP:DR, WP:M, WP:ARBCOM or anything similar. There is nothing in the guideline and are we going to block them for it? I think it's imperitive to have a well laid out direction of what our re-course is, if we are ignored. Until that is done, then I suggest all we can do is give them one off warning. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's not just new people who do not know any better. Some veteran editors leave out summaries, too. Unless punishment is enacted on those who do not bother, however, these messages are the best we can do. The current messages are already too heavy-handed for some recipients; at least they feel that way. A more effective encouragement may be setting a lower threshold for the bot that reminds people when they don't leave edit summaries often enough to start contacting them. A link to the mathbot would also be very useful, if we can insert the username individually. Xiner (talk, email) 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Xiner about the existing warnings being perhaps too heavy-handed for type-1 people. I also absolutely agree with the usefulness in including a link to the Mathbot tool. Here is the message I normally use:

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be { nonexistent / extremely low / low } :

Edit summary usage for Kralizec!: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --~~~~

However while my message often works very well with type-1 people, I am not sure how effective it is with type-2 or type-3 people. There are a couple of editors with 9k - 12k edits (but edit summary usages lower than 20%) who have multiple copies of my message in their talk archives. I try not to be obnoxious and leave the same message multiple times on a talk page, however if the editor in question has moved my message to their archives and they edit an article on my watchlist again ... --Kralizec! (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is nice. I'll adapt it for my own use. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to add one more group: Vandals and spammers. While some might add a summary to avoid detection, most vandal edits that I spot have no summary or only a section link for the summary. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Will; the vast majority of casual vandalism has a blank edit summary. The more experienced vandals fill in the edit summary on the theory that newpage patrollers will ignore edits where the summary says something innocuous like "minor edit", but those people are a tiny minority. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

When I have run into those sorts of intentionally misleading edit summaries in the past, I have used {{Wrongsummary1}} , {{Wrongsummary2}} , or {{Wrongsummary3}} . --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew about them. However, I never needed them. Is there an equivalent in the new warning system? Will (Talk - contribs) 01:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: The other big red flag I watch for is having red linked user and/or talk pages. Those edits draw more scrutiny than others. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain exactly that point to an anon editor a few months ago. He was making hundreds of legitimate edits to the day of the year pages, so I sent him a note to let him know that it would really help us out if he could fill in the edit summaries, because anon edits, with a redlink user page and blank edit summaries "fit the profile", so all of his edits triggered extra scrutiny by newpage patrollers. He immediately deleted my message and kept on editing without edit summaries. I waited a week and sent him another note; he deleted it and continued editing. At that point, there was nothing more I could do, so I dropped it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds familiar. I have a pet peeve with legitimate users that clear their page as soon as they read a message. It leaves me with no way to reply or add more data. It also means that I can't quickly tell if I already sent them such a message. It is worse for IP users. However, the most troublesome IP users, legit or not, are those that use a new IP for each session. That's a real pain. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW: My template {{User:Will Pittenger/templates/Summary Consistently Omitted}} is available for public use. It is specific to the really problematic users. Please don't use it for beginners and other users that simply don't know better. There is a shorter way to call it at {{User:Will Pittenger/SumCO}}. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrongsummary warnings missing?

Discussion moved over from WP:UW as the two subjects are linked

Are {{Wrongsummary1}} , {{Wrongsummary2}} , and {{Wrongsummary3}} still in the process of being harmonized? I just noticed they were not included on the redesigned WP:UTM. As handy as they are in the battle against vandalism, I hope they are not being depreciated. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think until we have a recourse with where you are going with the warnings, you can only issue one warning. With everything else we have an option, dispute resolution, blocks etc. But the edit summaries are a grey area, and as Jim said you can issue them to your blue in the face you won't get anywhere. In my opinion same as the deletion of user page warnings a policy has to be written and applied, before having that policy we cannot warn people for it, we can just give them a reminder of etiquette. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, {{Wrongsummary1}} and {{Wrongsummary2}} are basically the same, with just a tiny bit more emphasis on 2. They basically AGF. {{Wrongsummary3}} is what I initially proposed because of intentional attempts to mislead. It seems to me that 1&2 could be combined into a single-level user warning (like etiquette); #3 is a type of disruptive editing. They could be restructured to fit into other schemes that way. Or, couldn't they be done like the WP:AGF warnings, with a N/A on level 4? --lquilter 05:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... isn't adding a misleading summary a form of vandalism? I fear a bit the fact we are going to have a grid of 200 different templates in the end. That's just my 2 cents of course :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about this. I am concerned about template creep, but I also see value in providing a panorama of useful templates - so long as we are clear that no editor is required to use particular templates in specific situations. I think I am leaning towards suggesting that we allow a reasonably wide variety of templates while also tweaking the intro to the project page to clarify that this is designed to assist editors rather than to mandate any particular messages.--Kubigula (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Unfortunatly I'm 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. These aren't for discussion here but, please keep everything together on WP:UW 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 -} 08:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this down the bottom to bring it to your attention again. Please get stuck in, I've added a columnn against all of the templates with my recommendations of what we should do. But we saw the screams of consternation when we implemented the last lot of changes, please get stuck. There's enough of you around with this project, that with all your view points we should get something that looks good. Otherwise I'll do it and you might not like that......again ;) ^;Khukri 20:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Test Article templates out of category

The templates {{test1article}}, {{test2article}}, {{test3article}}, and {{test4article}} are all currently listed under "Other" when it appears as though they should belong with the standardized warning templates in the main box. Is there any reason for placing them down there? If it's because they don't fit the uw-template format, I'd like to suggest that they be moved to fit that naming convention. I'll gladly make the moves myself, I'd just like to check first. These templates were intended to serve as leveled warnings, not as general notifications. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Uw-spam2

Can the word merely be removed please - it implies that WP is at least partly a directory of links. BlueValour 01:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it kind of is. Many teachers in my school, for example, won't trust Wikipedia's information because of the capacity for anyone to edit it, but they will use it as a starting point to look for sources on the information. And articles are supposed to have a large number of "See Also: links, references, and other external links to credit their information. While we are supposed to provide actual information, we provide links too. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 04:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

improper edit summaries?

Do we have a warning that deals with individuals using misleading edit summaries? I.e. they write in it "reverting vandalism" but are instead introducing their own vandalism?--Crossmr 04:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this above at WT:UTM#Wrongsummary warnings missing?.--Kubigula (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Convert to Subst:

I'm thinking we change the tables to have subst: at the beginning. I tend to use this fighting vandals, and really, you're meant to substitute it. What do people think? Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 10:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Along long time ago in a galaxy far away...... the page table was done like that albeit very briefly. But the problem is that the table gets cluttered and makes the page very large. I would suggest either create your own local toolbox, or use some of the scripted popup tools. Regards ^Khukri 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image size

The templates should be like this:

Your message here.

[[Image:Stop hand.svg|35px|left]] Your message here.

rather than: Your message here.

[[Image:Stop hand.svg|25px|left]] Your message here.

What do people think? --sunstar net^talk 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally a big too big. But if everyone else wants it lets do it across the board. Question do you think that the image size will be a detering factor for a vandal if they have already ignored potentially two other previous warnings? ^Khukri 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did the warning about removing maintenance templates go?

Thanks for all the work done on the warnings by those who are doing it! Unfortunately, I can no longer find the warning template asking editors not to remove maintenance tags until the work is done. Any clues where I can find this one? --Kathy A. 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The evil template leprechauns ran off with them, but in the mean time you can use either one of these {{drmmt}} or {{drmmt3}}. They will come back on the front page in one form or another, once we finish the second part of the review over at WP:UW, within the month....... I hope. Sorry for the inconvenience. ^Khukri 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! (and darn those evil template leprechauns! *grin*) Kathy A. 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect category

See Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Add new redirect category. Gracenotes^T § 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Attack page warnings

Where is the substitute for {{attack}}, used for people creating attack pages meriting speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G10? I want to use an attack2, version, but don't see that warning moved into the new set. GRBerry 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Does {{db-attack}} suite your needs? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Do ignore my little brain fart! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

{{db-attack}} is used to tag pages for speedy deletion. I believe what GRBerry is looking for is a template used to warn the creators such pages not to make them anymore. That's what {{attack}} does. Heimstern Läufer 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a single-issue template. Its purpose is to inform the person of policy, or guidelines, or what have you, but not to escalate. Multi-level warnings escalate.

WP:UW is in the process of completing single-issue templates, although the multi-level templates are basically complete. Once you use {{attack}} (which is not yet in "uw-" scheme), you should probably use the {{uw-creation1}} series, starting at either the 3rd or 4th item, I would say. The series for {{uw-defamatory1}} might work also, but it's up to you. Gracenotes^T § 21:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer was correct, I was coming through as an admin processing CAT:ASD, which is one place where pages tagged {{db-attack}} get categorized for processing. I hit one created by someone with a prior {{attack}} warning (from me), and was looking for a stronger warning to use for a second incident. I considered {{uw-block1}} (with block), but felt it would be punitive rather than preventative in this case, given the one week interval since the prior attack page creation. I do think the defamatory series feels better for attack pages than the creation series, and may try it next time. GRBerry 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not-numbered user warning pages

Currently, {{uw-vandalism}}, {{uw-spam}}, {{uw-own}}, and rest of them don't exist. I think that we should do the following with them:

1. On top of each page, have a word-for-word copy of the first item in that series. If {{uw-vandalism1}} gets updated, {{uw-vandalism}} must get changed also. The reason is so that {{uw-vandalism}} can actually get used (like {{test}} vs {{test1}}), but so that substitution works, but not substituting doesn't produce a mess of code.
2. In the noinclude section, put a template similar to {{templatesnotice}}, except have it describe the whole series, not just one template therein. {{user warning set}} should be very useful.

Does this sound sane? Finally, I would suggest that we create {{uw-}}, and have it redirect to WP:UTM. This is a cross-namespace redirect, but I think that it's permissible. (Note: transcluding WP:UTM will now produce the multi-level warnings, due to a bold change of mine; I hope that this is ok.) Gracenotes^T § 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: {{uw-test}} exists as a redirect. Gracenotes^T § 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they should all just be redirected. Any objections? --WikiSlasher 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. It would be a lot less complicated... although it would shatter my dreams of having a centralized page for an entire series. Oh well, so be it. Gracenotes^T § 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do it, but I'll need to create a category for uw- redirects first, since it seems like no one objects to my comments at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Add new redirect category, and the change isn't major anyway. Gracenotes^T § 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

spam templates

I propose to edit {{uw-spam1}} and {{uw-spam2}}, to shorten the level2 a bit, and put the inappropriate links section on the level1. It doesn't make much sense explaining the policy at level 2 and not at level 1. Of course feel free to change it back. The text on level1 is now very long, though do you think we should remove the "Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion." sentence from it? (I am talking about level 1) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC) That would be something like:

uw-spam1

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

uw-spam2

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Thank you.

Further discussion

I just realised that spammers are going to be told about nofollow 3 times with the exact same sentence. A bit repetitive I think...we can either remove the mention of nofollow from all but one but then some won't get that specific warning and will not know about it. We could leave it like it is but then it will get repetitive on some talk pages, we can make a separate {{nf}} template that gets added when the warning is issued the first time but I understand the objections to that ("template creep", not keeping it simple etc.), or we could make it an optional parameter at the risk of leaving pointless cluttering code in them. We could also of course just vary the wording a bit for each different template. --WikiSlasher 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

removal of maintenance tempaltes

have created {{uw-maintenance1}} and {{uw-maintenance2}} now. Have made them dual level, and progress into deletion templates later. _→AzaToth 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested code change

This may make the templates a bit more complicated than they already are, but I think that do the following change might be... beneficial.

{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|blah blah [[:{{{1}}}]] blah blah}}

to

{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|blah blah {{{{{subst|}}}#ifexist:{{{1}}}|[[:{{{1}}}]]|{{{1}}}}} blah blah}}

The code itself is a bit longer, however: 61 to 102 characters.

Why might this code be good? Well, it would allow people to list multiple pages, and help fellow vandal-fighters to not confusedly give testers or vandals warnings about the same page. Having {{{1}}} equal to "Page" or "[[Page]]" yield "blah blah Page blah blah", and having it equal to "[[Kitten]] and [[Evil]]" would produce "blah blah Kitten and Evil blah blah".

See this comment for what motivated this idea. Any thoughts? It would require mass changes... but I've done those before for templates, 3 times :) Gracenotes^T § 16:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

uw-creation templates

Shouldn't they be called uw-create? Creation is a bit awkward. Xiner (talk, email) 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems on the renaming, alot of people find creation a bit awkward. ^Khukri 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and moved them, as well as changed links to them everywhere that they appears (except on userspace). "Create" is less awkward and shorter. Gracenotes^T § 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

vandal2 template

{{editprotected}} The vandal2 template should be strengthened and made a bit more explicit as a serious reminder, without being too accusatory in tone. I suggest the following be added:

"In the future, please remember that Wikipedia is a serious, online encyclopedia consulted daily by thousands of people around the world, who are seeking reliable, factual information"

- JGHowes 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was also previously concerned about {{uw-vandalism2}} not being serious enough. However, perhaps what you're looking for is the following set of templates:

{{uw-joke1}}, {{uw-joke2}}, {{uw-joke3}}, {{uw-joke4}}

Could you suggest any other ways to make uw-v2 a bit more serious, but not biting? --Gracenotes^T § 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like V2 as it is. It's stern and uses the word vandalism, but it's not overly harsh. I especially like it in situations where you have an editor who done some apparent vandalism but also has some good edits in his/her history. If you are dealing with repeated blatant vandalism and clear bad faith, you can always skip ahead to {{uw-vandalism3}}.--Kubigula (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Removed {{editprotected}}. First, you need consensus to make the change; second, place the editprotected template on the talk page of the template you want to change, not here. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are the copyright violation templates?

Am I overlooking them? --Ronz 03:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Use {{nothanks}} for now, since single-issue templates haven't been addressed fully (next on WP:UW's to-do list, and in process). Gracenotes^T § 03:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Shouldn't the old ones be left in this article while the new ones are being developed? --Ronz 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the content currently on WP:UTM is correct, but Template:TestTemplates has the old system. Gracenotes^T § 05:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OR?

What about OR? Do I simply treat that as Unsourced? I don't know if the two are really the same thing or not. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I use {{uw-unsourced1}} for original research (which is being subsumed by WP:ATT). Do you think that a template is needed that deals with OR specifically? Gracenotes^T § 04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. You appear to consider the two to be the same thing. Are they? Will (Talk - contribs) 04:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I appear to consider them the same thing? hrm. I don't, really. However, in the same spirit of the merge of WP:V and WP:OR into WP:ATT, perhaps {{uw-unsourced}} could cover both verifiability and original research. I could reword the series, or if anyone else wants to, they can go ahead! Does that sound fine? Gracenotes^T § 04:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There's half a dozen OR warnings on the overview page at the moment, I'll create a single issue once we get somemore people proofing the work I've done. Cheers ^Khukri 08:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

{{WarningsUsage}}

Guys, if you don't mind I'm going to edit the discussion box on the above template, to strengthen the please come to WT:UTM for discussing these templates part. I know a couple of you like myself have all these warnings in your watchlists but I'm concerned valid discussion points are getting missed as editors post to the individual template talk pages. I've re-directed a few of these topics over the last few dats. Cheers ^Khukri 08:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Only warning"

In my time as a vandalfighter, I always disliked this warning. First of, I don't feel any vandalism is "extreme" enough to warrant it. When a page blanking or content removal has occurred, other warnings (e.g. {{uw-delete1}} or {{uw-delete2}}) can be applied instead. Another issue with it is WP:AIV; I've made quite alot of reports consisting of this warning and the vast majority of vandals remained unblocked, mostly since admins usually see this warning equally to others. I suggest it should either be merged with {{uw-vandalism4}} or entirely removed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This has already been various discussions on this page since the re-creation of the IM warnings. I'm personally not in favour for similar reasons to yourself, but a number of other editors have expressed the wish to have this type of warning, so it should stay until there is concensus the other way.

I think that so long as the issuing editor understands that issuing this warning means that when the user is reported to AIV that they might not be given a block, then there should be no problems. For those who use this warning, asking why wouldn't you get a block. Primarily because there has been no chance for AGF, which is sometimes difficult I know, but more importantly secondly gives little chance for someone to repent. A nuclear style warning if someone is playing silly buggers, instantly gets their back up, and it's very likely they will vandalise again. But in the same way one speaks to a recalcitrant child, if we take a neutral tone first and let them know it's not accepted, and build up through the warnings I think we're more likely to have a cumulative effect in stopping vandalism then just instantly slapping them down. I know it's a simplified attitude, but lets face it the majority of vandalism is childish. ^{Khukri -} 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This warning seems appropriate for large-scale vandalism which displays a clear knowledge of bad intentions. An example that comes to mind is posting private information (e.g. phone number and address) for a user on a large number of widely-read pages. I don't see why we should welcome such a vandal to Wikipedia or bother giving them another chance. Λυδαcιτγ 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats's covered at the moment by {{pinfo4}} and most probably later by just {{pinfo}} or something similar. ^{Khukri -} 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes {{uw-vandalism4im}} or {{uw-image4im}} is warranted when someone really needs to be nuked before they can do any more harm. For example I've only used {{test4im}} once against this user here, probably 10 instances of image vandalism without warning and then afterwards continued until blocked. I personally don't understand {{uw-delete4im}} or {{uw-spam4im}}, I think blanking or spamming can never be terrible enough to need an "only warning", especially since people can both believe an article is bad and need deleting, or think that their website is really cool and useful for many articles. --WikiSlasher 05:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I use {{test4im}} for long-term vandals who repeatedly return to the same article to make the same nonsense edits, typically from dynamic IPs. For example: User talk:71.162.44.179. (For context, glance at the article history -- most of the IP edits are the same person making the same edit each time). -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't the only time I used test4im, I also used it here against a good-faith contributor trying to remove vandalism...what a train wreck. Have to be careful when checking the history before you use this template! :( I'm not proud of it. --WikiSlasher 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the only usage would really be for vandalism by users previously blocked for vandalism. For other users, the IM messages are really a violation of WP:AGF and possibly {{WP:BITE]] Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV Report notification

I've created a template to notify users when they've been reported to WP:AIV - would this be something we could use? Here's the template: User:Hersfold/Template:reported Ideas, comments? Hersfold ^(talk|work) 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I use {{Non-admin fwarn}} in this situation. auburnpilot talk 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never really seen the point of those notices. They sound a bit like "I've gone and told teacher on you". By the time a user has been reported to WP:AIV for vandalism after a final warning, there's little they can do avoid a block (I suppose they could grovel and beg). If a temporary block results, the block template will include a warning to behave better once the block expires. If they get indef blocked the warning about future behaviour is even more pointless. I guess if some users like having them available they do no harm, I'm just not very convinced by them. WjBscribe 06:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-edit conflict, I do agree with WJBscribe. I don't think that it helps either editors, admins, or the vandals. It is very WP:BEANSish to say "You will be blocked", indicating that the vandal still has time left to vandalize, and if I were a vandal with little time left, I might even go to WP:AIV to vandalize (since the link is there) -- it would get me blocked quicker, but vandalism to WP:AIV is very disruptive, and should be avoided, really. Plus, AIV usually gets cleared pretty quickly nowadays; slow sometimes, but having two notices in 10 minutes that say the same thing, one retrospective and the other prospective, is superfluous. Gracenotes^T § 06:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually found them to be very beneficial. When I've used them, the vandal almost always stops his/her nonsense immediately, whereas if I simply wait for a block, the user often continues. I even maintain a modified version in my userspace here, which automatically includes a signature within the box. Anyone is of course free to use this version as well. auburnpilot talk 06:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I wasn't aware there was already a template in existence for this - I tend to agree with Auburn , though. If people hear that they are actually going to be acted against, then they tend to shut up and do as they're told. Since there's already a template, though, I'll request the deletion of my version. Thanks. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it works in practice, my theory means naught! Gracenotes^T § 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting

Is there any reason why the old templates are not redirected to the corresponding new templates? (At least, the ones that clearly can be). —METS501 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is part of the next phase of WikiProject User Warnings, see their overview page. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

New warnings

I created a set of warnings for inappropriate talk pages usage, as outlined in WP:TALK (for example, this). They use the abbreviation uw-chat, there are 4 levels of warnings. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I have a feeling that it should only go up to 3 levels (you can't really block someone for off-topic discussion; see also the uw-own, uw-mos, uw-agf series). Any thoughts about this? Gracenotes^T § 21:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:TALK, users can be banned from editing for repeated violations of talk page rules. I wouldn't block someone for general off-topic discussions, but certian actions like attacks and some of the other things listed here could reslt in blocks. I wasn't really sure whether or not to take it to level 4, but as with some other warnings, I can't see level 3 or 4 being used too often. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

All right. That's great, then. I've created {{uw-chat}} (base redirect page) Gracenotes^T § 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

{{AntiVandal}}

I have created a template that I think could make fighting vandals by patrol faster, and easier for people to look through quickly. Example output using {{subst:AntiVandal|Article|uw-vandalism3|Thank you,}}--~~~~:

Your edit to Article

Message posted on Tuesday, February, 20, 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Article, you will be blocked. Thank you,

--Falconus|Talk 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The things that this template does that I think make it a good aid are:

1. Automatically puts the title
2. Automatically puts the date posted
3. Automatically uses "subst" on the template that it imports.

I don't want to put this up with the other warning templates until I get some feedback saying to do so, and when (if) people want me to put it up, I don't know where to put it.

Thank you,

--Falconus|Talk 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to template.

Hrm. By the way, I did create another version of this template before I switched to WP:TWINKLE, {{mwarn}}. They both appear to be equally useful, though! They're a bit different. Great job on the coding, though, Falconus. Good thing WP:AMT isn't a policy, too! Gracenotes^T § 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that I should put this with these templates, and if so, where should I put it? And thanks for showing me how to do the "subst" in the template!--Falconus|Talk 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added it, if that's ok. It's a meta-template.... so check out WP:UTM#Meta-templates! Gracenotes^T § 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just my tuppence worth, but and not in anyway to be taken personally.

1. Headers were decided a while ago in WP:UW not to be included as it was thought that this would introduce unnecessary clutter on the page, if it ended up being on every second template. The guidelines on how headers should be used can be found on the project page.
2. The date is already in yours and most editors signature.
3. There's a discussion going on above about the automatic subst'ing of templates.
4. Wording wise it's almost identical {{uw-vandalism4}}.

Regards ^Khukri 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... It is not almost identical to vandalism4. It imports templates. Therefore it could be almost identical to any of them. I think that it will just make it easier and quicker. I know, from applying it, that it is quicker than the other methods I used :-). Thanks, --Falconus|Talk 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In the long run if you or other editos find it makes it easier to issue templates, then who am I to argue. My only concern is to maintain a harmonised system, and not see the current or upcoming changes, degrade as time goes on into a hotch potch of templates. The old system required that an editor needed to be a memory master to remember every nuance difference between essentially identical templates. Cheers ^Khukri 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Thanks--Falconus|Talk 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

About meta templates

Khukri, the source code for {{AntiVandal}} currently (23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)) reads

==Your edit to [[:{{{1}}}]]==
====''Message posted on {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}''====

{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>{{{2}}}|{{{1}}}|{{{3}}}}}

And the source code for {{mwarn}} has:

====Your edits made on [[{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}]] ([[UTC]]) {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:{{{2|}}}|to [[:{{{2}}}]]}}====
{{subst:{{{1}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|subst=subst:}} ~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly><noinclude>~~

There is no vandalism warning text in any of these. Rather, suppose that one calls {{AntiVandal|Kitten|uw-vandalism2|Please stop.}}. This means that the warner wants to warn the vandal about vandalism to the "Kitten" article with the template {{uw-vandalism2}}. The template calling line will then change to {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>uw-vandalism2|Kitten|Please stop.}}, which when substituted, will do exactly that. The only current problem with the template is that all parameters are required. Gracenotes^T § 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't really understand the #if things. If you want to fix that problem, by all means, please do. If not, I'll try to look into it when I get a chance. Thanks again.--Falconus|Talk 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me, I understand now how the template works but didn't see it was just a place holder of sorts, but I still have no idea of how the meta tags work :/. Though if you guys think it's of benefit then as I said above ....Just my thoughts, if you wish to use all the parsers already embedded in the template then surround it by this one, it's getting to the point where it maybe quicker to write the template out by hand, or am I off track again? I'm glad I use some of the scripting tools as I'm sure I'll never remember the correct syntax. ^Khukri 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Parameter to turn icon off

Would it be alright to add a parameter to turn the icon off when using a given template? I'm fine with the stop hands and such, but the blue icon seems just silly to me.. My idea is that it would be on by default, but you could say, for example, {{subst:Uw-test1|image=no}} or maybe a shorter {{subst:Uw-test1|i=n]] and then have a text only message. Would this be acceptable? -- Ned Scott 09:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally not in favour, yet another thing tagged on to the warning etc, but if it makes people happier with the system then why not. ^Khukri 09:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no real need to remove it, IMO. Plus, with the images, it makes it easier to tell at a glance how many warnings someone has been issued. The IP addresses have a tendency to rack up a rather high count. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's many reasons to remove the image and little to no reason to not give the option to remove the images. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand why someone would not want to use icons in every message they use then there's probably no point in explaining it. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*shrug* I think it'd be fine, as long as it is (like you said) on by default. It'd allow for a bit of customizing for the templates, which I'd be okay with. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be alright to propose this edit to the templates? Remember, it would probably help some people to use them over the older ones without changing any of the default behavior. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Substing?

Should it either be noted that the template should be subst'ed or a "subst:" added to each template? (Above, there's a mention about something on this... does it mean this isn't required?) — SheeEttin {T/C} 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is recommended or even required. According to WP:SUBST, such templates "should be substituted". I think it would be better to add a 'subst:' to every template in the list. Any thoughts? - Anas ^Talk? 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it very helpful to have the 'subst:' already in the templates. The old brain can only remember so much... :) --Kathy A. 16:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What happens if you subst: a template with subst: already included in it? Also, people didn't really like have ~~~~ included in the template, I think there might be similar outcry if the subst: was included. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to force substitution with current MediaWiki, although I really wish there were. Substitution is... complicated, but if you transclude a template, no sub-substitution occurs within the template. For example, if Template:Asdfgh had the text {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTH}}, and it were transcluded (using {{Asdfgh}}), the resulting display would be "{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}", and the source code would still be {{Asdfgh}}. But if the same template were substituted, the result would be "12", a number both displayed and in the source code. So substitution cannot occur, at all, unless the template name is preceded by "subst:" when called. /me gets angry Gracenotes^T § 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Substitution for more information, specifically this section. It's much, much too wide to put on the WP:UTM page, especially for an 800x600 display. In addition, I've added a notice to each multi-level-warning template header. Any comments? Gracenotes^T § 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it just as wide? In the project page the description column is very wide, meanwhile in the substitution list it fits the size of the words and leaves the extra space for the 'subst:'s. Or is this just in my display? I think leaving it on the main page will be better, especially that most newbies are more likely to use the main page for the templates and probably not substitute them. What are the chances of them reading the notifications? - Anas ^Talk? 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In Internet Explorer, line breaks can occur on hyphens. This is not the case in Firefox, and in the 800x600 screen resolution, the table extends beyond 50 to 75 percent the width of the screen. Gracenotes^T § 18:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that the "description" column gets squished, though not extremely. I can fit both on my screen comfortable, but I'm way out on a resolution of 1280x1024. :D

Anyway, I think a notice should be sufficient, by the little green one is rather easily missed. Could it perhaps be black and on its own line? (and have an exclamation point after it--punctuation 'n all) — SheeEttin {T/C} 03:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wording problem in vandalism templates

I have to object to the wording of {{uw-vandalism2}}. It states that the "your edits could be considered vandalism." If that had been the case, I would have used {{uw-test2}} instead. No, I did see the edit as vandalism. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. How about "would likely be considered vandalism"? — SheeEttin {T/C} 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 4#Which tense for level2. I personally prefer "have been considered", less for reasons than for... well, personal preferences. Gracenotes^T § 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the level 2 warning is designed to be used where there is neither an assumption of good faith nor bad faith. If bad faith is clear, then I think it's appropriate to skip ahead to level 3. However, if we are making no assumption, then I don't think we should be unequivocally labelling the edit as vandalism. That being said, I have no problem with "would likely be considered" language. Whatever the consensus, I propose {{uw-delete2}} and {{uw-error2}} also be changed to match.--Kubigula (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Warnings about inserting misleading information?

What do we do about edits where the editor inserted misleading information. In the edit 21:47, February 22, 2007, the editor changed some fact such that it looked like the changes were correct (aside from the case). Another example would be the various attempts by various users (which might be sock puppets or open proxies of a single editor) to change Bill O'Reilly's hometown from Levittown between and Westbury. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The {{uw-error}} series is for more bad faith incorrect additions, while the {{uw-unsourced}} series should be used for incorrect additions that were likely made in good faith. Gracenotes^T § 06:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-block1}}

{{User:Persian Poet Gal]] picked up the the above warning was autosigning and removed it, could one of our scripting guru's please check that it's OK now. How'd that one get forgotten about? Cheers ^Khukri 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User warning removal

I don't see a template for users that delete warnings from their user talk page. I know there used to be one in the old system. Am I missing it? SubSeven 10:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the current consensus is that people are allowed to remove what they want from their talk page. The templates you are talking about were deleted last Fall. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archives/2007/01#Removing_warnings if you want more information. (when in doubt I personally check the user's page history) -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I should have gotten in on this conversation earlier, but I think we need a template about removing legitimate warnings. If a vandal is removing warnings, someone warning them may not remember to check the history, and the vandal may get level one warnings multiple times, with each new editor thinking they've never vandalized prior to the warning. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I Agree - You have to check histories everywhere else, it just adds time to the process when you have to check the talk page history too. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I use VandalProof, and it really slows things down too much to check page histories. Actually, VandalProof tends to log me out when I do that. Checking page histories before adding a simple warning can easily cut the amount of warning/reporting I can do in half. I've found that it's usually the most persistent and destructive vandals who promptly remove the warnings. I also don't think there was consensus to remove these templates. From this discussion it seems to me there was a clear consensus that these templates are needed. These are some possible templates we could put back in: User:Sbrools/Sandbox 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫

But you still have to check the talk page history to see that the vandal has removed the warning in the first place. So either no-one checks the history, no-one knows the templates are removed and the warning never gets placed, or people check the history, in which case they can see that user has removed warnings and can use the appropriate level warning. Therefore I don't see a need for this template. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking specifically of instances where I've warned a repeat vandal and they've immediately removed the template, misleading other editors who come across them during the same spree. That's usually the situation in which I need the "don't remove warnings" template. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Create templates

User:Esprit15d has added an optional header string to only the create templates. I've not read anything about this and I'm up for removing them until there's concensus to add them to all of them, or none of them. Cheers ^Khukri 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When I attempted to make the header in {{Talkinarticle}} optional, all I did was break the header. Something prevented the server from seeing the text as a section header. It was rendered as though I had it in a <nowiki> block. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a general question but are we adding headers to templates now? or only single issue? Again sorry to harp on about this but if it's for one instance of a warning type it should be for all, i.e we create them for all single issue templates or none. editors have to know what they are getting when they put a temaplte down on the page, and not get any surprises because of two headers or none etc. I'd like some feedback on the above create warnings, because those I know aren't supposed to have headers. and as I said I'm going to revert them unless someone tells me I being out of order. Cheers ^Khukri 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I've reverted the headers. ^Khukri 10:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wording problem in {{uw-upv1}}

I noticed that {{uw-upv1}} includes the phrase "In case you are the user, please login under that account and proceed to make the changes." This makes sense only if the user is an IP user. When included on the talk page of a logged in user, we might as well state that we suspect one of the accounts is a sock puppet. Can we get a way to turn that sentence off? I don't know if we can do it automatically or not so we might need a parameter. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It'd be very unlikely to leave a good faith warning on one editor editing the user page of another IMO. I can only really imagine along the lines of legitimate admin work, userboxes being changed or otherwise it's vandalism. Can you give some examples please? Cheers ^Khukri 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Are you wanting samples of the vandalism? I have seen many users editing someone's page in a way that looks like vandalism. It is not often, but it does happen. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, in what context do you see it being issued? I can't recall seeing a logged in editor vandalising another editors page that would warrant a good faith warning, though I'm not saying it doesn't happen. IMO they'd usually have been pinged for something else before it got to user page vandalism and I can't think of any time when you'd issue a good faith warning. Usually it's straight out n out vandalism, with no need to assume good faith. Cheers ^Khukri 10:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wording in {{uw-biog1}} and {{uw-biog3}}

Both these templates refer to biographical articles, while biog2 and biog4 just refer to articles. I just had to revert someone putting unsourced negative information about Nick Griffin and a third party into the British National Party article, and obviously the biog1 template doesn't make it clear that WP:BLP applies to all articles not just biographies. Should the templates be changed to make this clear? One Night In Hackney 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the wording here. Further improvements are welcome. I don't entirely see the wording issue with {{uw-biog3}}, either... could you pontificate? Gracenotes^T § 03:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-biog3}} states Please stop adding unreferenced controversial content to biographical articles (my emphasis), obviously it applies to all articles not just biographical ones. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 10:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I merely made "biographical" refer to content rather than articles, which should be good enough, I hope. Gracenotes^T § 05:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-hoax}}

I created a new warning, {{uw-hoax}}, for warning users that create hoax articles. I just realized that it overlaps a little with the {{uw-error}} series, but that warning series is worded to warn against introducing misinformation into existing articles. Thoughts on whether it should be kept as a separate warning? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 08:15Z

Sounds reasonable, can you add it to the overview? Cheers ^Khukri 10:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalize/vandalise

template:test3-n spells it vandalize but template:test4-n uses vandalise. Can we decide on one spelling and stick with it? --NE2 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We did but editors still want to come in a change one or two templates for some reason or other. I think we should just change them all to American English, as we don't really care how it's spelt just so long as they are all the same. They were all in British English as it was mainly Brits who wrote them, but I've lost count of how many times I've reverted an editor coming in and only changing a couple of templates. ^Khukri

These templates are no longer used. Please see the new templates on the project page of this talk. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we should redirect them to the new ones. --NE2 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

{reply to Khukri after edit conflict} I will say I'm frustrated that my compatriots feel the need to do this. I don't care which spelling is used either, although in theory it should be the "ise" spelling simply because that's how they were originally written (assuming, that is, that the "stick-with-original-spelling" guideline applies to templates). Heimstern Läufer 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz: No, that's not entirely true. Many users have not switched to the new ones, and indeed some have expressed that they do not wish to. For my part, I have begun to use the new ones, but have also continued to use the old blatantvandal warning since it has no equivalent in the new system. Heimstern Läufer 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

uw-vandalism4im is equivalent to bv. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't, it's equivalent to test4im. I use blatantvandal in contexts where we need an immediate 3rd level warning, but it's not quite severe enough to merit an "only warning". Heimstern Läufer 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be so harmful to have a "uw-bv". This would go somewhat against the goals of the project to harmoniszszszszsze the templates, but I'm actually in favor of it. Gracenotes^T § 23:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What will happen to the old templates?

We still have a lot of users preferring them. I assume that one of these days, they will find their favorites gone. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether they prefer them or just don't know about the new ones is uncertain. —METS501 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend just leaving the old templates alone. No-one will complain then (well, somebody will, someone always does) --WikiSlasher 06:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Never a truer word said in jest! I would eventually like to see all the re-directs put in place as I've listed at WP:UW/Overview but it's hit a brick wall and hasn't moved for quite a while. I can't see it moving in a hurry in the near future and I think it's going to be a case of we leave the old system hidden in a corner, we don't talk about it, mention it and hope one day it will go away. There are one or two editors who have been quite vociferous with their opinions around different forums on wikipedia on how they don't like the new system or certain parts of it. Though they are the exception rather than the rule their opinions should still be respected, and I'm beginning to think that no matter how harmonised we try and create this system it will never satisfy the needs of everyone. I've already said on WP:UW, I'm now up for scrapping the second phase of the harmonisation program, just tidy the system up so it's presentable and then put it back in place. In hindsight I think it was a bit of a pipedream to imagine a harmonised system, that followed standard guidelines etc, because in the end editors will always have a difference of opinion on what those guidelines should be. And as we have seen here on number of occasions no matter how much we communicate this to the rest of the community, there will always be an editor who is affronted because they have not been personally consulted on changes to their favorite template. So to cap it off I suggest people pick and chose the warnings they want from WP:UW/Overview, add them to the front page here. Then we wrap up the WP:UW project merging all the pertinant info again here, and the we have a one stop shop, here, for all things talk page template related. Cheers ^Khukri 10:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:UsernameBlocked-vandal

BigDT (talk · contribs), an admin who participates on WP:RFC/NAME, mentioned there:

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.) -- Ben 07:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

diff

I suggest adding the parameters diff and oldid to the templates, for optional diff link, by adding following code after the link in the templates:

{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{diff|}}}{{{oldid|}}}|([{{{{{subst|}}}fullurl:{{{1}}}|diff={{{diff|prev}}}&oldid={{{oldid|next}}}}} diff])}}

if you don't link such complex inline code, a simpler direct param could be used:

{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{diff|}}}|([{{{diff}}} diff])}}

_→AzaToth 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I support this -- the second, not the first, since it's much less cumbersome to copy a diff page's url than the revision number (although I might be incorrect about this). The only problem is that all spaces are cut out from #if statement arguments and results, so where would you suggest placing this chunk of code in, say, {{uw-vandalism2}}? And now, AzaToth, you might want to check out my code suggestion above ;), unless anyone else understands it and is willing to comment. And if you need someone to implement this parameter, I'd be willing... I'm used to going through huge lists of user warning templates and making changes! Gracenotes^T § 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Change it into:

[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to
[[:{{{1}}}]]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{diff|}}}|([{{{diff}}} diff])}}}}. Your edits could be considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]], and have been
[[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. {{{2|Thank you.}}}<!-- {{uw-vandalism2}} -->

_→AzaToth 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the call {{subst:uw-vandalism2|subst=subst:|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-vandalism2&diff=cur&oldid=prev|Template:Uw-vandalism2}} will result in:

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Uw-vandalism2(diff). Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to
[[:Template:Uw-vandalism2]]([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-vandalism2&diff=cur&oldid=prev diff]).
Your edits could be considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]], and have been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]].
If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. {{{2|Thank you.}}}<!-- {{uw-vandalism2}} -->

_→AzaToth 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)