Latest comment: 17 years ago37 comments7 people in discussion
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but when I use the "#" symbol to create a numbered list in warning sections on user pages as per the standard layout at WP:UW, the numbers aren't showing up anymore with the templates. The count still continues (a non uw template will show the correct number) but the numbers seem to be obscured by the uw templates somehow. For some examples see User talk:167.206.156.241 or User talk:64.68.241.78. Hoping someone more experienced at template coding than myself can fix this. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite the opposite; see Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings#Layout. I've fixed the uw-vandalism series using an HTML table to force proper alignment of the image. Not very pretty, but it works for now. A better solution would be to simply remove the fluffy icons. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:34:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note, I reverted the changes you made to {{uw-vand4}} because they were out of place with the other warnings and results in loss of synchronization with the other lv4 warnings. -- Hdt83Chat04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S: I also thought that we didn't use the numbering system. So many people don't use numbers anymore anyway. Perhaps we need to update to main project page?
In truth I don't know what is causing it. The uw-delete series seem okay but the others have some strange thing happening if you use the number # system. I personally don't use this system so this isn't a problem for me so maybe somebody else could look at it? -- Hdt83Chat04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>It's still a recommended guideline on the layout, all we decided was that it wasn't to be automaticaly included. The layout is an anathema, but there are some long established editors out there that do adhere to the layout guidelines, and I have to admit pages do look a damn sight smarter when done properly, instead of a blur of warnings. Khukri16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems there are two problems going on here, right? In Internet Explorer, the numbers do not appear when using "left" in the image markup (anyone know why this happens?). In most other browsers, using "left" in the image markup causes line break problems. However, we need the floatleft div there because some people might not put two line breaks after the previous warning, thus causing multiple warnings on a single line. Reducing the image size will work, but it's not a guaranteed solution. Tables are not a clean solution. I personally don't see any reason to make changes if hardly anybody is using ordered lists for warnings. Vandals don't care about how their talk page looks. Warn them and just get on with it. --- RockMFR02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Vandals won't care if the talk page is numbered and neat. They will still vandalize so just warn them with or without the lists. -- Hdt83Chat03:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
My thought was that the numbering was there so that when an editor was reported to AIV that the investigating admin would more easily and quickly be able to see how many warnings the editor has gotten. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. It is far easier to review the warning history of a user if they are neatly ordered and sorted by month. Users should not be forced to use numbered lists, but templates do have to be compatible with them (see documentation). The only solutions I can think of are to either remove the pointless fluffy icons, or use a table format. I'll restore the latter soon if nobody has any other solution. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:47:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Where did that documentation come from anyway, would be interested in finding out how it was adopted as a guideline, as I can only see your name on the history? The screw up most probably occured March 15th when I added the optional part so editors could choose not to have the so called fluffyness (icons) if they didn't want it. The left was added at the same time as the image was messing up the wrap around and leaving a gap between first and second lines. The discussion is in one of the two talk pages WT:UW or WT:UTM. Cheers Khukri06:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The one-line templates (e.g. {{uw-v3}}{{uw-v4}} are shorter than the image, and so subsequent list items are getting starting at the right of the image becauase technically that is where the next line is. Adding <br clear="all" /> to the end of each template seems to solve it. However, this means people will have to type
#{{subst:uw-v1}} ~~~~ <br clear="all" />
or the signature has to become part of the template. I'm trying to think of better solutions. –Pomte10:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for the help Pomte. The sigs included within the template are a 'no go' that was done previously the last time we had tables, was extremely unpopular and was quickly removed. How about including the # as an option within the template itself. We voted to not include it a while back but if it's an option with default off I'd imagine editors would be happier with it, could this be done somehow so as it take priority over the left statement for the image? or two lefts I dunno? Khukri11:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Setting # as an option won't help, I'm afraid. Here's a haphazard fix: For the templates that show up as one line of text on reasonable resolutions, get rid of |left on the image. See here. However you will see spacing discrepancies especially when you make your window smaller. –Pomte11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Which was the original reason for putting the left in. I think we've been going round in circles here over the last 8 months, with tables, sigs, left, etc. I had a quick look through the talk pages about the left coming in, but couldn't find it. The choice I think will be about removing the left from the image statement which will mess up slightly the alignment, or removing the numbering recommended layout from the front page. It isn't used by many editors but you can certainly see when an editor who does use it has sorted a page out and would be a shame to see it thrown out just because we couldn't find a fix. This problem only shows up in IE and I couldn't see the problem as I work with Firefox, I just switched over to look at it. Khukri12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
float:left makes it so the text is evenly spaced and wraps around the image nicely. See the following example where the image isn't floated left:
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
compared to the regular template:
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
I was actually just trying to fix a Firefox problem of the templates stacking down like a staircase to the right, but now I see another problem in IE, in fact the problem originally posed, and it appears float:left is the culprit there also. –Pomte12:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>Then we have the gap between the first and second lines. Unless anyone comes up with another way, I think I'll run AWB through them all in a couple of days and remove the left. It's only a minor aesthetic issue anyway and I think it'll be far less drastic than adding tables to all the warnings than having the signature problem all over again. Khukri12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No the # is entirely optional editors can use put it in if they wish. All I'll do with AWB is do a find replace for px|left]]}}} --> px]]}}}. Cheers Khukri13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As stated above this doesn't account for users who do not insert a newline between the warning and the previous comment. However, anyone warning anyone else should be familiar with wikimarkup and can easily fix it themselves. –Pomte16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Pathoschild has changed the icons sizes from 30px (lv 4) & 25px (lvls 1-3) to 20 px. I have reverted these changes because a consensus to change the icons has not been reached. Plus only the icons in the {{uw-vand}} series have been changed so the other series {{uw-test}}, {{uw-blank}}, etc. still have their original sizes which breaks the original standardization of the icons. Please leave comments or suggestions and disscuss below before changing again as I do not want to be in an edit war. -- Hdt83Chat00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't followed every discussion here very closely, so I may have missed some discussion. I don't recall there being any relevant consensus on image sizes. Further, the changes are intended to correct broken usage; I don't really see the need to run a referendum to implement temporary bug fixes in four templates.
I've restored the invisible tables, which you rolled back along with the image size changes. When reverting a specific change, please consider leaving other improvements. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:26:29, 03 May 2007 (UTC)
Could I suggest everyone hang off changing reverting templates at will, as there's a risk we're going to start looking bloody stupid to the outside world, and I also had a gut full of reverting changes last night to {{uw-block3}}. This includes leaving the table changes that Pathos has done as it demonstrates one option open to us but is fairly innocuous to the issuing editor. Over today I will try and find the relevant diff's if I get a change that shows why things have been done, as I said above we are going round in circles here. Open up a discussion and see what everyone, including the regulars at WT:UTM, think about this whole thing. Cheers Khukri07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, the problem with tables is that the signature is put below the message, and not at the end of the text (See User:Lucasbfr/Sandbox. Or we could put the signature back in the template, but I fear we "might" encounter "some resistance" (I mean our heads will be ripped of and put on sticks on the Main Page) -- lucasbfrtalk08:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Prolog has reverted v3 & v4 for this very reason. I will look later at the full cycle of why what lead to where, and try and add it to gracenotes FAQ. Khukri15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the invisible tables are less desirable than the unfloating solution laid out in the above section. To avoid all these problems though, I suggest ditching the numbered system altogether. People can do simple mental math to count how many warnings there are, and the monthly system works fine. –Pomte16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Remove 'info' icons
Numbered lists are far more useful for quickly viewing warning history than fluffy icons. Although users don't have to use lists, warnings do have to be compatible with such usage.
To avoid all these problems, I suggest we remove the 'info' icons altogether. They break numbered lists, bulleted lists, and indentation, which essentially makes it impossible to organize them neatly. They give Wikipedia a fluffy, amateurish Geocities look (one vandal retorted, "Watch out! He's got rich text editing!"). Combined with a monthly header system and the fact that template warnings should never be used with users that have a lot of non-warning discussion, there is no need to distinguish them from other discussion.
If they don't read their talk messages, a cute little won't make them do it, but it will make editing harder for some users and reading harder for administrators. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:20:11, 03 May 2007 (UTC)
Deja vu anyone, some people like them, some people don't hence the coding to allow those who don't want them to switch the icon off. Lets assume some good faith here, alot of lvl 1 & 2's outside the vandalism templates are given to those editors who don't know better, and vandals aside, something like this does stand out on a new talk page and gets attention. Surprise surprise I for one am against getting rid of the icons also I fail to see how they will make an admins job more difficult. Again it's your opinion about it making wikipedia look amateurish. Also as your example shows. now you've tidied it up, with the icons an admin can quickly scan down the left hand side of the page seeing what level or warnings have already been issued. To me it makes the warning system clearer to read.
On a side note can you point me to where the concensus was attained for the layout documentation? As Pomte suggested it may be easier to get rid of the layout system, and I'd like to see what sort of support the system had when it was implemented and the history, rationale, etc. It's a good system but unfortunately adhered to by the minority. Cheers Khukri21:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I have always disliked the icons, but I can live with them if they do not break lists. That is the reason I reduced the image sizes and wrapped them in an invisible table. Both solutions fixed their use in lists and would keep both users who like icons and users who like organization relatively content. However, both changes were summarily reverted, breaking lists again.
To answer your question, the guidelines were drafted 15 months ago by the WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation. At that point, they codified practice that had existed for several months, so the current organization system is roughly 18 months old. A user later complained about a template's incompatibility with lists in January 2007, and the template in question was fixed. Users' comments in that discussion confirm the practice; one comment in particular was "I did like the icons before (as they currently are on the overview page) but if that's screwing something up behind the scenes then obviously that's more important". Khukri himself stated that "if I don't get anymore feedback, then I'm going to take it as an acceptance of no divs/table (except block) and a reduced sized image meets ours and the old WP:UWLS criteria". He separately promoted the system later that month.
These guidelines have been applied to every single user warning message template on Wikipedia starting in December 2005, with several hundred pages regularly maintained in this format. If you want icons, I can live with it; if you've changed your mind and no longer support the system, that is fine too; but the icons should not make an established usage impossible for users who prefer it.
To return your question, can you show me where there is a consensus that this system is not desirable? If there is consensus not to recommend the organization system, that is unfortunate but incontrovertible. However, we cannot simultaneously prohibit users who prefer it from using it, as we will by deliberately breaking lists. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:07:45, 04 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, very few people are using the numbered lists on warnings though. That said, I hope we'll be able to keep the icons and fix the list thing. I think keeping some sort of consistency is desirable in this area, and icons emphasize the message, making it more "official looking". As I said before, the problem with tables is that it "breaks" the signature part, by putting it under the message. I think that putting the signature (back) inside the template is out of the question, I remember the level of concerns it raised at first.
After playing a bit with the HTML, I fail to see how we could do both, to be honest. And making the images smaller and smaller won't work, remember that this is also a text size issue. If it works for you, it doesn't mean that the layout won't be broken for someone else. I am willing to keep the tables, the signature part is not THAT important, if it can help achieveing consensus. -- lucasbfrtalk06:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll just respond quickly as I have a long day ahead. You started addressing your comments to me then switched to using me in the third person, as though you were having to defend yourself/numbering to a jury. Have no fear, you are the one person on this project that has been here longer than myself, and I know we both have the project goals at heart, albeit with different view points but still the best intentions. If we are going to examine getting rid of the icons, then we have to look at all options study how we got here and why. I don't want to get into the icons have more consensus than the numbering system, because personally I believe tradition takes priority over both of these. i.e. if consensus was achieved by three editors but had become unquestioned accepted norm over period of time then this is it's own justification. Nowhere in my question did I state there was consensus of one kind or the other or have I said I have changed my mind, and if you read what I've recently written I think it's clear that I am neutral on the subject and have also praised the numbering (above), but we have to look at all options. Your last statement hits the nail on the head, we are not in a position to prohibit anything, if editors want icons, tables, numbers or big fluffy pink dice then that's their prerogative, but we are here create a set of tools that best meets these requirements. Icons I feel have become accepted. Enough editors have come here over the last 8 months to comment or praise the new system which demonstrates it's acceptance if not by a few, then looking through AIV the majority of pages reported all have our warning on them, as opposed to the old system. I personally believe we have a fantastic system here and am proud of the work that we've done, but if it must change, so it must. I haven't taken ownership of it. I think removing the left as stated above will end up being the best option, that meets everyone's needs, even if it does leave a slight gap between the first two lines. Khukri07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The statement (no divs/tables) you found above was the one that lead us to the system we have now, because the image size changed from 30 or 35 down to the present 25, and I think it was when we were in exactly the same situation as we are now, accept it was pre-left coding.
Hey, I didn't see that |left thing. What is it for? (Seems the numbering works without the tables if we remove it). Sorry I was a bit outside the project the last few weeks so I might have missed the story behind it. -- lucasbfrtalk08:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The left was brought in about a month ago just a tweak to remove the gap between the first two lines, partly my fault I didn't think to test it with the numbering system. Unless oppose I'll remove it over the weekend at the same time I do your second argument/thank you (see my talk page for everyone else) replacement. Khukri08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
(I hate you I saw that afterwards and was removing my statement discretely, hoping nobody would notice) The |left thingie is nice, but to be honest if removing it fixes the lists on short warnings (seems so), better get rid of it. But I think we should either keep it everywhere or remove it from all templates. Don't make assumptions on the length of the warnings. Users can add text at the end, and not everyone has the same screen size. I'm pretty sure the v3 might look big on my old 14'' monitor ;) -- lucasbfrtalk08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur with removing |left. I tried a global removal of them on User talk:72.242.22.210 and it fixed things fine- it even fixed some strange thing that was causing the *May 2007* section to indent from the other section headers. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; that is a perfectly acceptable solution. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 21:53:03, 04 May 2007 (UTC)
AWB tomorrow
OK AWB is set up to rock n roll but I'm going to wait until tomorrow morning.
This is only being done to the UW templates listed at WP:UTM. If anyone wants any more mass changes done or doesn't want me to go ahead please leave a message here or on my talk. Khukri17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Lucas if you get a chance, are all the first arguments correctly subst'd? if not I'll do them at the same time. Khukri22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
OK I've spent most of the morning going through all 139 templates. Things I've done are
All lefts removed
All 2nd parser arguments are now subst'd
All level 1, 2 and single level notices all have simply Thank you. in the 2nd argument.
All level 3, 4 and single level warnings are blank in the second argument.
All icons except blocks now include optional icon argument to remove extraenous fluffyness ;)
Added spaces to between icon and text.
All the templates even the newer additions are now in my watchlist, even since we created them I've started to see divergence in the system in this short time. I've had to leave personal messages with a number of editors recently who have come by and changed one or two warnings as it suits them (one was blocked ended up permanently), without any forethought for the entire system. If anyof you see this sort of thing please direct them to discuss their changes here or preferably at WP:UTM first. Now for an afternoon of beer n rugby! Khukri11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion notices
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Mmm... I was wondering on the opportunity to bring the speedy deletion notices (such as {{nn-warn}}) in the scope of the project, with a shiny (i) icon. I am tagging a lot of articles for speedy deletion these days, and the {{uw-creation}} series is not clear enough (especially for A7). Do we do a one shoe fits all speedies (the problem being that we will explain the {{hangon}} part, but not the rationale behind the deletion)? Or we could do a single issue template especially for A7, errrr... {{uw-a7notice}}? (Or we can leave it as it is, of course, I am merely suggesting ;) -- lucasbfrtalk08:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I'm working on a draft right now (which is nn-warn shortened), I'll wait a bit to see what the others think before considering moving it to the template space. -- lucasbfrtalk12:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Great idea but do you want it as UW- as it's not really a user warning per se. what about sp-a7? Cheers Khukri15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you see why I wanted to have some input before. On the other hand it'll follow the same look and feel than the uw templates and is an informative template... so I don't know... Creating an other "subset" of warnings might simplify the {{uw-copyright}} template by splitting it into 2 templates (the warning, and the how-to part). THat one is a bit weird at the moment... -- lucasbfrtalk22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy, OK it was the first thing that came to my head. I'm just a little against calling everything that's in this project uw- as alot of our templates especially the single issue aren't warnings. But it's a minor issue, and groups everything so I'm not too worried. Cheers Khukri07:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>I've thought many times about exactly the same thing, and was one of the reasons I asked Ben to sort out his RFC warnings into rfc-. I'd like to see eventually something like;
I was thinking among the same lines. Or, alternatively, we could transform uw into 2 different prefixes, uw for the warnings, and un (user notice) for the notice messages messages like for example {{uw-mos}}. I think both ideas have their merits, depending mostly on how many prefixes you want in the end. -- lucasbfrtalk12:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Image and speedy
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
As it's been talked about on various occasions, just to get the ball rolling I've started listing some of the warnings for speedy deletion and image warnings to get the uw- treatment. Even though these come under talk/user page warnings I still think they shouldn't come under the uw- prefix so I've added as a starter im- & sd- but it's all open to discussion. Again there will be editors who do not want to change the existing systems, so please do not touch any live warnings.
Just add to the list or change them as you see fit, this is by no means a complete list just the first I came up with off the top of my head in a couple of mins. Cheers Khukri13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
refactored as a table. I added an other area where UW that might be useful, the prod/afd notices.
Some thoughts :
Do we separate the images speedy deletions from the rest? I think all speedies should have the same prefix. However, the other images templates might be better on their own prefix.
On the layout, I think that for once, allowing the template to output a header might be a good idea: The speedy messages are important, are normally not issued in sequence, and putting a header makes the message more likely not to be missed. And the previous templates allowed it when they did not put it directly.
Which icons? I think for most and for the most severe (G10, G11, G12) might give the warnings some weight.
I think that icons and headers next to speedy deletion notices are a good idea. The deletion of a page should not be taken lightly and the notice should stand out more than regular notices. -- Hdt83Chat22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
User:Sigma 7 is proposing to put the above warning up for TfD, see it's talk page. I've responded with my thoughts there, but it could do with someone elses opinion as I may be too close to the uw- system. Cheers Khukri23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
See here and scroll down a bit. He's not put it up for TfD he's proposing to do so, but i think wishing to discuss the issue first of all.
Thanks for the heads-up; I was sure to weigh in with my $.02. Considering most of the members of this project would have missed the proposed TfD were it not for your note above, perhaps we should consider having all the templates' talk pages redirected here? Adding this page to my watchlist is a lot easier than adding all 400 odd warning templates. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hallelujah, me me me me I want to do it. I did mention this once before but was not accepted, but by god will it save me having to keep an eye on every page. Khukri06:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
<unident> What do you lot reckon I should do to talk pages such as v1 that has comments copy it here? Khukri12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
create a new archive with them maybe? I reworded a bit the talk page template to make the soft redirect stronger, but I think that redirecting all talk pages here directly might be a bad idea in the end. People that want to follow a single template might prefer watchlisting that template and not the whole UW space. Dunno... For my personal use, redirecting is better of course (I have more than 1000 pages on my watchlist). -- lucasbfrtalk14:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC) I changed my mind while Kubigula was posting, sorry for the confusion
Redirection is a good idea. I suggest moving any current discussions here and archiving the rest per Lucas.--Kubigula(talk)14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
Hi, I started to work a bit on that one. It's a first draft, feel free to comment/rewrite everything ;). The idea is to be able to use the template with or without a header (header=1), with or without an icon (icon=n), and before or after deletion (delete=1). You can see some sample outputs on my sandbox. I am not sure about the wording of the deleted version. -- lucasbfrtalk08:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Haven't looked through the wording in detail, looks good though, but I would suggest the syntax on the icon header & delete should all be the same i.e y or n. Khukri09:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Hopefully this won't seem like template-cruft, but what if we had a "short" and "long" version of the speedy deletion user talk template? The long one should be used first to provide an overview of, for example, notability on Wikipedia. The short one should be used to inform the user of deletion in a terser manner: this way, we wouldn't spam the same information about policies and guidelines on the user talk page more than once, but merely provide a way to tell them to stop, and (more importantly) to inform fellow users of the articles. As for the "before or after deletion" part, could we use #ifexist there? GracenotesT § 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
In my view, theses templates are the long version, and the {{uw-create}} series are the short ones? I'll try to play with #ifexist, I've never used it before. If it does what I think that's a great idea. -- lucasbfrtalk14:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good and provides more info than the uw-create templates. It looks similar to the existing Nn-warn series. -- Hdt83Chat22:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm thinking sp-notable may be better. I would think most users would think of a speedy deletion as "sp", not "sd". --RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd add to this line, changing it to "This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, or game, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable" or something of the sort. Drinking games, especially, get frequently deleted due to lack of notability. Other made-up games (drinking and not) are also frequently added here, in an attempt to "spread the word". hmwithtalk13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There is often vandalism being contributed to the WikiCalendar pages. Please create a warning template to warn those who add their own names or names of friends to the births in the year's birthdays, etc. The message that is typically used is "Please do not add yourself or anyone else without a Wikipedia article to the Wikicalendar pages. To have an article, a person must meet the criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Thank you". I am assuming that this message is typed manually. It would be great if there was a template such as uw-wikicalendar, etc. - Gilliam16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think this type of violation is meant for our project. We're trying to keep the number of templates down, just type it out, or name it something like {{wikicalendar}}. --RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a generic test or vandalism warning would be most appropriate for those edits. The templates have the option to add your own commentary to them if you want to personalize them to the situation. It's not possible to have specialized templates for every possible type of inappropriate edit. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Note about deleted warnings
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've added a line to {{s/wnote}} stating that deleted warnings are viewable in the page's history. I've run across a few people who seem concerned about this and who have been manually adding such a note. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I've noticed plenty of warnings based on non-fair uploading and use... but I can't seem to find one based on unfair use of an already uploaded image.
For example, let's say there is a logo for a TV show on Wikipedia, being used (fairly) in that show's article, and a user uses it on their userpage, or another page unfairly. There really isn't much of a notification/warning system for that. I'm just curious as to what you guys think about that.
I'd be interested in making one, so I just want to get some feedback about it here first. Thanks! --HAL200803:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well there is {{Fuir}} for people who use fair use images in Userspace. I guess it hasn't been migrated to the WP:UW standards as of yet. I don't know of a template for inappropriate use in Mainspace. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, then does anyone mind if I went ahead and started creating some templates for review going from 1-4 (maybe 4im too) for WP:UW regarding inappropriate use of fair-use images? The thing is, there really isn't a template for an image like that, there's "the image you uploaded isn't in fair use", but not really much for using an image that IS fair use in it's article, but not on a place like a userpage. I'll start coming up with some base ones now, and see what you guys think, thanks! --HAL2008talk20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Get stuck in, there was a discussion above about creating a whole harmonised set of image warnings, mush along the lines of the uw- series. Have a look see what you think, but otherwise go for it. Khukri20:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool! I've actually just finished making the first set of them, though they're just in testing stage now. They're completely editable. When you're placing them, you can use "|" to specify more parameters, though I haven't actually done a sample of that yet.
They are for when a user adds an image already on Wikipedia to their page, but using it there isn't allowed under fair-use regulations. I just stuffed them on a user subpage for now, since I want some feedback before I put them in the template namespace. Thanks again guys!
First glance they look good, only two things however, all the names should be in lower case, this removes confusion for editors having to rememebr what templates are in upper and which are in lower case, etc. I would also suggest maybe im-fuir or something like that so when we have a whole hatfull of image warnings, we'll have an idea what's what when all listed, using a prefix for different warnings types. Overall though good stuff. Khukri21:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I put the name in lower case, and I also put im- before the name. I think they're pretty good, I'm going to give them template pages now, and I'll use the page that it's linked to now for examples of all 3 types for each template. --HAL2008talk21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, they now all have their own template pages. Level 1 located at Template:im-fuir1 (left in that form on purpose for example) I'm curious... what do I do now? Am I supposed to submit them somewhere else for review? Any help is greatly appreciated!
Gentleness
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There are frequent clearly non notable autobios of junior high school students where, although they totally misunderstand WP, a formal warning such as we have been giving is simply inappropriate--I am thinking particularly of those where they are clearly making a personal statement and while it is embarrassing to us and will be to them, we should not come on the same way we do to corporate spammers. I often improvise something, and many of us also do,, but I think we need a simpler way of doing it with an alternate template for at least "inappropriate article" and I suggest the wording:
"I'm sorry, but articles about your accomplishments and biography will have to wait until you become famous, as demonstrated by magazine articles or other reliable sources referring to you and your work. That's the way things work here, so it's been necessary to delete the page {{{}}} But we'd be glad for you to contribute on things that are already notable:" followed by a brief welcome message.
DGG09:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, for "inappropriate first article" we have {{Firstarticle}} in the "Other" section, and we have {{uw-autobiography}} for autobiographies. If Firstarticle isn't enough and uw-autobiography is too "formal" (and these junior high school student articles are really that common), you could base a {{Firstautobio}} on Firstarticle. Anomie14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Good Faith Edits vandalism
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
I had concerns regarding this warning given by User:TomTheHand to User:Husond for thisgood faith edit. The warning given called his actions vandalism which I feel is ALWAYS innapropriate to consider good faith actions vandalism. I confronted User:TomTheHand on his talk page here to which he replied "This template, which was developed by Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings, is the generally accepted response to removal or editing of talk page comments inappropriately." If this is a common practice, it needs to stop. There is no point when a good faith editor should be called a vandal and accused of vandalism. If an edit is ill advised, ask them to stop. Is this truly a common practice? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It may be appropriate to change the text of the templates for editing or removing talk page comments to refer to disruption instead of vandalism. Such action is, in many cases, undertaken in good faith. This does not make it any more acceptable, and so providing a series of warnings is necessary, but use of the word "vandalism" may be contentious. TomTheHand18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
But what happened here is that the wrong template was selected. The level one templates don't mention vandalism because they assume good faith. The level two templates don't make that assumption. You might note that the templates are usually for use with new editors, not with experienced editors who presumably know the rules. The usual course with experienced editors is to write a personal note about your concerns. Hope this clears things up. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 18:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Elipongo - a personalized message is usually better. It's only an essay, but I suspect most of us here agree with the reasoning of WP:DTTR.--Kubigula(talk)18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF doesn't say "assume good faith the first time you disagree with someone, but after that they must be a vandal." I don't think the second-level warning is the proper place to stop assuming good faith. Warnings are often not given in order: first level warnings are generally written from the perspective "Welcome! You appear to have accidentally caused a problem; please be careful!" They are not appropriate when an action is apparently intentional, and come across as patronizing in that case. See here, where Ryan Postlethwaite left me a level 1 "assume good faith" warning in response to my warning of Husond.
Note that assuming something is intentional is very different from assuming it was vandalism: sometimes people intentionally do something, thinking that they're doing the right thing. They need a warning that says "What you did was intentional, and I'm here to let you know it was wrong. Please don't do it any more." I use the second-level warning for this; in most cases it works pretty well. TomTheHand18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This whole problem could be avoided by not templating the regulars. Templates such as these are often designed for new editors who are unfamiliar with poliices. As the essay says, throwing links to these and giving offers to paly in the sandbox to experienced editors can be offensive. The solution, write a simple custom message. Template messages do not work for everything. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)18:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
No matter what one's opinions on WP:DTTR are, I continue to think that the templates in question would be more useful if they referred to disruption instead of vandalism; again, the second warning is a pretty bad place to start assuming bad faith. TomTheHand18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
We used to have slightly softer versions of the level 2 warnings, but a number of editors felt they were too soft and weren't using them. So, most of the level 2s were changed to the "appear to be vandalism" language - see {{uw-v2}} - which I felt captured the nuance of assuming neither good fair nor bad. We seem to have missed {{uw-tpv2}}, and it is actually harsher than the other level 2s. I will go ahead and change it to match the others.--Kubigula(talk)19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Kubigula, I think the change you've made helps. I had in the past felt that {{Uw-vand2}} had soft enough language to be used as a first warning for edits that were not accidental without assuming bad faith, and used it in those cases. I think I just assumed all level 2 templates were the same way. TomTheHand19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
We should redirect. I like the TPV series, as removing or changing talk page comments can be a sneaky way to try to change consensus etc. However, user page vandalism is really just plain old vandalism. One UPV template would be plenty, but I don't think we really even need one. As we integrate more single use warnings, I think it's a good idea to trim off some of the existing redundant warnings, and UPV is a great place to start.--Kubigula(talk)04:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your agree, and all I can say is Hallelujah. When we started this project, if we'd tried to wipe out this many warnings in one go, there would have been all hell to pay. I'm glad now that so many extraneous warnings are now beginning to fall by the wayside. One thing I think we should look at though is keeping a record of why and when these decisions were made. I noticed Lucas had to revert someone for putting in icon lefts, yesterday and it was lucky he had the link to hand. But it is becoming more and more often that when we blitz one of the warnings we then have to go looking for the explanation diffs, as someone questions it 6 months later. So good idea, make sure there's nothing that exists in upv, that could expand or enhance the V series, and merge/redirect & delete away. Khukri08:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah good thing I was born with a degree in googling ;). I am really busy these days, but I think the FAQ should be expanded with our reasoning behind the layout. -- lucasbfrtalk17:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Userpage vandalism is plain old vandalism, but the current vandalism template implies it's an article, upv template should stay as it is. Ryan Postlethwaite23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Too late :). I've already redirected it, and one word needed to be changed doesn't mean we should keep the template. Maybe a parser functions wizard to make it so that if the page listed in the warnings namespace is user, replace "article" with "user page". --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Non of the templates mention article so to speak, the problem is, userspace vandalism templates are more specific than a general vandalism messages - they let the user know exactly what they've done wrong (they might not know vandalising userspace is bad). I wouldn't exactly say you've got a consensus to redirect them with 3 comments. Ryan Postlethwaite23:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
On a page that doesn't get the attention of many people, I would say 3-4 is enough for a minor thing like this. Also, I think a person would understand that placing "I HATE BOB!!!!!!!!!!!" on a userpage is exactly the same as placing it on an article. --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't consensus with the people that use the warnings though, I'd suggest taking it to AN, or the village pump. I personally oppose the idea of removing the warning. Ryan Postlethwaite00:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Based on Ryan's concerns, I went ahead and cross posted this conversation at WT:UTM and WT:VAND. It's easy enough to undo the redirection if there's consensus against the change.--Kubigula(talk)02:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan Postlethwaite UserPage vandalism is the same as regular vandalism, As he said the current template implys that an artical was vandalized but I don't think there should be a seperate template for UserPage vandalizm, Just keep the one we have now. oysterguitarist~Talk18:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the UPV warnings should stay. It may not be clear to a new user that any edit to a user page could be considered vandalism. A user might add a comment to a user page thinking that they are contributing. Giving the user a uw-v1 isn't really appropriate. The UPV warning is also a good message to give to someone who might have forgotten to login before editing their user page. -- Mufka(user)(talk)(contribs)22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel especially UPV-1 is useful; I've used it in the past. Somebody may do a well-meaning edit to a userpage without realising that's off-bounds, or it may be the user herself having forgotten to log in. Maybe we can reduce it to a single-level warning? The higher levels of UPV don't differ all that much from the regular vandalism series, so I feel redirecting those is OK. Phaunt17:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What about having just a single issue warning for userpage vandalism? Dish that out then anything after that is just plain old vandalism. Also most of these templates should be deliberatly boiler plate, and can be refined with the 2nd parsered argument. Khukri22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I like Khukri's idea of having 1 warning for uerpage vandalism, Having more wouldn't be that helpful. Then again what if the vandal is persistant on vandalizing UserPages? oysterguitarist~Talk23:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced there's a real need for the template, but if people find it useful then I suppose there's no harm in it either. I agree with Mufka that we should simply revert to the old version of upv1 and redirect the rest. If we list upv as a single use template, then hopefully we can delete the other upv# warnings after a while when editors have gotten out of the habit of using them.--Kubigula(talk)02:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Unindent For me, if you would all be happy with it, would just move the old {{uw-upv1}} --> {{uw-upv}} with redirect, then redirect everything else over to equivalent vandalism warning for a month or so, then sweep it under the carpet and TfD it. Khukri09:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be the solid middle ground, so I've implemented it. {{uw-upv}} is the single use userpage vandalism warning, and I've added it to UTM as such. The rest of the series redirects to the matching vandalism series. Khukri - let me know if I missed anything.--Kubigula(talk)04:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Engaging script projects to follow WP:UW style
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, not sure if this has been brought up before, but has this project been working with user script projects? I use Twinkle for my vandal-fighting and recently when I mentioned WP:UW over on their talk it seemed they were not aware of the warning layout being used.
AzaToth says he will try and implement UW into Twinkle script, but I was just wondering if other script projects were in a similar situation? Would be good for them to get on board with a standard approach to user warnings. --Brentalk15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Aza, has done alot of work with this project in the past. The layout is just a guideline, alot of us do follow it, and if you look wherever I've put a block in place I usually UW-ify the page at the same time. Betacommand was lopking at doing vandalproof, and issued a changed text file, but I haven't spoken to them about it in a while. He did say however that they were working on a global tool along the same lines as VP, I might have a look on IRC tonight. Vandalsniper, etc I don't have any idea about how they do it, anyone else use them or wanna give them a shout. Remember however, Aza was involved in alot of these warnings from the beginning and thankfully used them in twinkle, other editors and vandaltools creators might not like the uw system. Khukri16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Update - Lupin's tool now gives you the option to warn with uw-v1 or uw-t1. Fantastic change by whoever did it!--Kubigula(talk)04:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm ready to fight for the change - it makes Lupin's tool about 50% better, IMO, and increases my personal efficiency on RCP.--Kubigula(talk)15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Khukri. I also try and UW-ify talk pages, particulary on anons as so many warnings on shared IPs may scare away the newbies. I don't mind tidying up warnings, but with active vandals by the time I've SharedIP templated and cleaned up the warnings, another vandal-reverter has warned them also, edit-conflicting me as it takes much longer than a script. --Brentalk07:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Auto-signing block templates
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Prolly because the block template is in his own div, when the rest of the warnings are no longer in a table. That being said, I have no opinion on whether or not we should sign inside or not. Twinkle signs twice anyway :D. But I like the fact that the block is in a box. -- lucasbfrtalk21:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Me to, but the autosigning is switched off by default, and I almost always use it now. i.e. {{uw-vblock|time=till hell freezes over|sig=y}}. One template I use often these days and am very happy with it. Khukri08:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
A user created uw-aiv2. Since uw-aiv is a single use warning, and we don't want it to seem like a multi-level one, I renamed it to uw-notaiv, since they have different purposes. I choose it to mean "not [for] aiv." Anyone have a better name? --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The name is appropriate for the warning. You could probably just keep the name the same unless someone comes up with a better one. oysterguitarist~Talk17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The name is spot on (does exactly what it says on the tin), I think it should be strengthened around the fact it wasn't vandalism, make it stand out a bit if possible. Khukri08:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Anyone think we should make a uw- template for some re-creating a page after it's been deleted by AFD or something else (see {{repost}}, the old template). --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hey, I posted about a fair use image warning a while ago, but I think it was buried in other talk comments. Either way, I decided that after a while, it was a good idea to post again. Either way, I'm just wondering if anyone thinks they could be useful, they are located as follows:
im-fuir1, imfuir2, im-fuir3, im-fuir4, im-fuir4im
The point of these is for them to be used when a user adds an image to a page that is under fair use in certain circumstances, but not in the place that they used it. For example, a user placing a copyrighted image (like a logo for an organization, television show, movie, etc.) on a page where it isn't supposed to be (like their userpage). These templates would be nice notices about that, but also allow to give higher warnings if a user is doing it repeatedly. If a user was placing the images for vandalism, the "uw-image" series would be used instead.
I would like to submit these to the User warnings project, and possibly the user warnings system, but I'm pretty sure that the community has to approve these first, so I just would like some thoughts on them, and whether they are allowed to be added to the project. Also, I also would like to know if I should submit these for semi-protection. Thanks! --HAL2008talk23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Very nice work! I do wonder, however, whether this would be more appropriate as a single level template. A quick blurb about the fair use policy, something like, "Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image, and only if no free equivalent is available. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people." along with a link to the full policy should do for the first violation. After that, the user presumably knows the policy and should just get plain vandalism templates, imho. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there already is one, here, though it hasn't been absorbed into the WP:UW yet. It is a good single level notice. I was just giving it a shot since fair use images are different than vandalism, and a user might get confused with it. That way I figured the use of this would be able to inform them that they are still using the fair use images where they don't belong. I'll also make the single use template more WP:UW friendly. --HAL2008talk18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Header always required?
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion
Hi! I feel the header assumes that warnings will accumulate; for a first, WP:AGF warning I don't feel the header is really warranted (it looks sort of hungry and might confuse the user herself). Might it be an idea to only add the header after the second or third warning? Phaunt16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I agree with you. Personally, I use a "Your test worked" header if I am issuing a {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-test2}}, and only use the "Warnings" header for more severe issues. However, as always, YMMV. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree too. Personally, I don't get into headers until they crack into a new month, and then I use the month and year header.--Kubigula(talk)18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally rarely use headers on individual warnings, and have to say since my RfA, now when I issue blocks I go right through putting headers by month, etc as per the UW guidelines. As a general rule you'd be OK following if it's a new page I wouldn't put a header. If it's an established editor who's made a screw up, then I'd put a header. If it's an anon IP or persistant vandal, I would now use the recommended layout on the project page here. Khukri18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I pretty much never use a warning without using an individual header. if the template does not provide one, I add one manually. Only if there are several related warnings about the same page or issue do I group them under a single section. DES(talk)19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If anyone would like to contribute to my templates
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I noticed that a lot of people mess with their talk page and the warnings so I made these. if anyone would like to help out (like add those hand pictures) you can do that if you want. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox)22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to tell you this but your warnings already exist {{uw-tpv1}} , {{uw-tpv2}} & {{uw-tpv3}} and the 4th level warning is standard {{uw-v4}}. However as per the discussion above, I think now they should all be removed and replaced with a single issue template. If you wish I can delete these templates? Cheers Khukri07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I fail to see what changes I could do to my talk page might be considered as vandalism since blanking is allowed? -- lucasbfrtalk08:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
When the tpv warnings were almost TfD'd, it became clear the only thing that these warnings can be used for is editing/refactoring of other peoples talk page comments, and as you say blanking and leaving messages on their on talk page, is not an offence. For JetLover, if it's about leaving messages like John smells of poo then npa warnings or any number of other templates can be applied here. Khukri08:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'd like to suggest the creation of {{uw-probation}} for warning against vandalism or controversial edits to articles under probation.
Please stop. One or more of your recent edits was to a page which is placed under article probation. All edits to this page must strictly follow Wikipedia's rules, especially keeping to a neutral point of view and not edit warring. Potentially controversial edits must first be proposed and debated on the talk page. If you continue you will be blocked from editing. Any editors making disruptive edits to pages on probation may be banned from those pages on sight.
One of the main reasons behind the UW series of warnings was to remove extraneous warnings, and call things for what they were. Vandalism is vandalism, no matter if it happens in article, talk, template space or to an article on probation. This also slightly deviates from the probation systems goals. The probation system isn't about protecting contentious articles, from anonymous vandalism, but to act as a brake for those edit warring on an article with differing view points. To call these viewpoints, which both might have valid arguments, vandalism would more than likely inflame the situation, as would calling someone with a differing view point, editing in good faith, unconstructive. Also this is highly likely that this would fall into WP:DTTR at the same time. Khukri09:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate edit Summaries
Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion
I would like to propose a inappropriate edit Summary warning, because some users put inappropriate remarks on edit summaries(even though there contribution was usefull) I have noticed this before and think there should be a warning for this. Oysterguitarst01:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we appriciate your recent useful contributions, the edit summary that you provided, such as the one you made to [[:{{{ARTICLE NAME}}}]],}} was misleading or confusing to other editors. Please enter an appropriate edit summary for any future edits you make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
I'm not sure mentioning WP:AIV to vandals is a good idea, because they could remove reports, add innocent users, ect. It should probably be blocked instead. Oysterguitarst03:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop providing inappropriate edit summaries. If you are hiding vandalism with false edit summaries, as you did to [[:{{{ARTICLE NAME}}}]]}}, you will be blocked.
After some tweaking. I guess this should be a series of warning templates like the ordinary vandalism user warning set. Hydrogen Iodide03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we appreciate your recent useful contributions, the edit summary that you provided, such as the one you made to [[:{{{ARTICLE NAME}}}]],}} was misleading or confusing to other editors. Please enter an appropriate edit summary for any future edits you make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Level 2:
Please refrain from making improper edit summaries to Wikipedia, as you did to [[:{{{ARTICLE NAME}}}]]}}. If you need help with making proper edit summaries, please see Edit summary. Thank you.
This has been mentioned on a number of occasions, and good work on taking the initiative on getting these started.
First of all I would remove the 4im level, there are few admins that would block on just this warning alone.
I would think about adding something to level two, which is assumption neutral, along the lines of this may also include personal attacks and uncivil summaries - give them a bit of reading.
Lastly the parsers need to be sorted out, if you create the templates, I'll wizz in behind you and sort them out if you wish.
Not sure what others think but these could be resolved with a single issue, and then straight over to the vandalism templates. Other takers? Khukri09:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I don't like the idea of a templates about edit summaries vandalism for 2 reasons: first of all my "vandalism is vandalism" motto, because "edit summary vandalism" can be a lot of things (from PA, POV editing, poop vandalism (I wish someone will vandalism template me for writing poop), to just being clueless) and I think these occurrences should be treated as such. My second reason is on the lines of "don't give them bad ideas". Edit summary vandalism is very bad because it can slip easily, and pointing vandals to it might augment the chances of having such things in the future. So I personally don't like the idea. -- lucasbfrtalk11:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to second what Lucasbfr had to say. For something like that I would either write a personal note or use the personalization field in one of the current templates. Most of the innapropriate edit summaries I've seen have been along the lines of NPOV or personal attacks and we already have templates for those. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 12:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, I disagree with the 4 levels of warnings. For just about any purpose, 3 levels should be sufficient to get the point across. This applies not only to the discussion above, but to all other user talk page warnings. -Amatulic18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Which level are you proposing we do away with, #1 or #4? If #1, what do you recommend it be replaced with? If #4, I presume you would suggest that {{uw-vandalism4}} be used instead ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
the advantages of a template, frankly, is that it sounds more official. sometime that helps--and sometimes of course a personal message is more impressive that a real human is watching.
(I wouldn't include the part about welcome & thanks in this group of templates-- offenders are often just experienced people who forget.) DGG (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times in the past in both the village pump, and amongst these projects and was decided as being a bad idea. The fact they have been given a final warning is clear enough that if they transgress they will be blocked. If you then put a warning on the page saying you have been reported, the vandal will often try and see how much vandalism they will put in before they are blocked. Also it in some way undermines non admins, almost making them seem impotent saying "I've been dishing out these warnings and now I'm going to tell on you, because I can't do anything about you". We/I would like to see the vandal fighters integrated into the blocking admins seamlessly, you dish out the warnings, and then editors like myself will block. If the report has been done correctly and the vandal has received a recent final warning, there's no need to tell them they're going to be blocked, as an admin should be on it within minutes and then they get given {{uw-vblock}}. Khukri09:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
From past experience, as soon as disruptive vandals see their name on AIV (as long as they know about our process) they then start vandalising that page, too. Of course admins spot this and fix quickly, but still I'd rather not signpost new vandals to our AIV process. Maybe something like "You have been reported to the Administration team for your disruptive edits". Even then it sounds like I'm just dobbing them in. --Brenotalk01:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't like to refer to some unspecified "team". Perhaps when someone is troublesome enough to vandalize AIV, that's the best sign for us to get rid of him in a definitive way. DGG (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Username Block
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hi everyone. You know what I just noticed, we don't have a uw-username block template, which is a pretty common reason for blocking. This one wouldn't need the time parameter though, since it's always indefinite. I'll start creating one based on {{UsernameBlocked}}, and another one based on {{UsernameHardBlocked}}. The parserfunctions and prettiness wizards will need to do the rest. :) --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I've created a regular username block template here, and a hard blocked username template here. It's basically just a copyedit of the old templates, with some things removed. Feel free to fix it. I'm thinking the regular one should be called uw-ublock, and the hard one uw-uhblock. --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You may want to get Ryan's input on this one, as it's his baby so to speak (leave a message WT:UAA. My first thought is it's too wordy, I think it should outline the reason for the block i.e. the name is unacceptable and doesn't meet X criteria, and like the vandalism templates and many others we then link to the relevant policy or guidelines already in place. Personally I think it's always better to link to the guidelines themselves so when they change we don't have to keep mod'ing the template. Give a brief premise to the block and then if they want to know more let them read it for themselves. Ta Khukri08:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I personally prefer it wordy, because that template is used on new editors, that sometimes never edited before. Giving them directly the keys is a good idea. Keep also in mind that this template is normally used as a block reason. -- lucasbfrtalk09:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
And to Khukri, the template does have a paramter to state the exact reason, which I believe will take out the "this,that, or that". --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I see AzaToth created {{Uw-ublock}} (good :)), but the template is fully protected instead of semi. This is the only block template that is fully protected. Any objection on semiprotecting it? (Or maybe we should fully protect all the block templates?) -- lucasbfrtalk12:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk page notice
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I noticed we don't have a notice for not starting new topics on a talk page at the bottom of the talk page, or not starting them with a heading. I've created the proposed notice here. Feel free to improve. Cheers,Mystytopia01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, not much difference, but a bunch of minor fixes.
Welcome and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using talk pages, please remember to start new topics at the bottom of the talk page with a ==heading==. You may also start a new topic by clicking the + button beside the edit this page button. Thank you.
As far as I'm aware, there are no rules that posts have to be to the bottom of the page, and this is just a continuance of Usenet etiquette. Personally I think this is template overkill, doesn't really fall under user warnings and for the amount of times this would be used I would suggest a personal message. Khukri15:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate username warning
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
An editor has expressed concern that your username may be inappropriate. Please note Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive and accounts with such names may be blocked. If editors agree that your username is inappropriate, consider changing your username into something that is appropriate.
I think there should be a warning for users with mildly inappropriate usernames or names that are neither appropriate nor blatantly offensive. Pretty obvious that this template is derived from {{unencyclopedic}}. Hydrogen Iodide02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Feedback
Err... Personally I think it is extremely biting to newcomers. At the moment, I am using {{UsernameConcern}} which is not covered by WP:UW yet (but probably should, you are right). When a username is clearly inappropriate, there is no need for a warning (since there is not much the user can do to change this), these get blocked on sight at WP:UAA. When it is not clearly inappropriate, then I think a template more in the {{UsernameConcern}} would be better, because the user might not know he did something wrong. -- lucasbfrtalk08:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems good. However, one thing that I would remove is the article reference "subst:uw-username|Article" because I don't think an article has anything to do with a username, unlike the vandalism series. Hydrogen Iodide17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use image notice:
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Alright, I've finished making a one-time notice/warning for fair use polcies on images. You can see the current one at: Uw-fuir. And the multiple level ones I made first (which if they are not used might as well be CSDed to save serverspace)
A small sample follows: NOTE: Please note that this is the base version, the specific image name as well as a custom message may be added, just like all other warning templates.
An image or media file has been removed from your userpage, user talk page, or other page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image, and only if no free equivalent is available. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people.. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Further use of thiese images will be considered vandalism, and shall be treated as such.Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Never mind. Forgot about the signature at the end. Will try to find another way to make the left float work with the format. --Hdt83Chat21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What about something like this? Instead of a <br><br> at the end, add a single </br>. The icon floats to the left correctly. --Hdt83Chat21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I looked at your sandbox and I like it. You need to see the complete warning text to get an idea of line wrappings and variable widths to make sure it works. Anything to fix that line break space on the templates is fine by me. --Brenotalk01:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
OTOH, there are a number of people who prefer the extra space on the first line to having a required line break before the signature (and to having the signature embedded in the template). Check the archives, both here and at WT:UTM. Anomie02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Most people I see on Wikipedia do not follow the layout on WP:UW and thus are not affected by the left float icons messing up the numbered list. I think that that this is the best compromise between those who do use the number list and those who do not want the extra space between the lines of text. If anybody has any better ways to fix this then I'm all for it but for right now this is the best solution so far. --Hdt83Chat02:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In this case I'd rather you hadn't been bold, as we've been round the houses with this and tested it to death. If you look at the numbered warnings in IE, the numbers don't show up, whereas in mozilla they do. See here for example. can you please remove them, and then run a test page before doing changes this big first. having just read your statement alot of admins use the numbered system when we put blocks in place, we often re-do a page. Khukri07:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for changing them back, I sometimes feel like doing an Ansari X prize for someone to find the solution to this problem. If you look back I think I was the first to put the lefts in however many moons ago, before it was noticed as being a problem. I fully appreciate that alot of editors don't see the reason for doing the numbered layout system, but whilst its followed by some of the community we need to make sure any change we do, doesn't mess up the existing system. Khukri07:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank goodness for AWB :) I saw this earlier and was wondering what about the bottom attribute instead of left? (oh no, here we go again)... --Hdt83Chat08:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Khukri07:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Khukri07:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
crap, I saw that too and since I don't have AWB I blindly rollbacked the edits you did from this morning (UTC). But I screwed up badly since sometimes you removed the |left from the icon prior to that (in June). That means that sometimes I put a "|left" back instead of reverting your changes. My apologies, could someone more familiar with AWB than I am double check everything? (I'll try to check manually (that'll learn me) but it is very possible I'll miss some. -- lucasbfrtalk13:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lucas, I just did a quick trawl through your today's diffs and I can't see any that Hdt83 removed the |left and you undid it to put it back in. Some changes by Hdt83 didn't modify the |left so I'd say if it was already there then leave it. Can you give me a specific diff so I can filter AWB better. --Brenotalk14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I can't find any specific diff right now, but I remember checking one of my edits at some point and discovering I added a |left when rollbacking. I don't know if that's possible to check for "|left" in the source of all our templates? (I checked my edits by hand and couldn't find any other occurrences, I just fear that there might be more and we won't see it. -- lucasbfrtalk08:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I checked over my contribs from AWB and all of them are back to the original version. On WP:UTM there is a link above each box to show all the warnings as they appear and they all show the messages without the left. --Hdt83Chat19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
A hard block. As in, with autoblock not disabled, and account creation block on. Usually usernames are "soft blocked" to allow users to create new accounts that don't violate the username policy. But if it's obvious that they don't plan to be productive (ex. User:R is a terrible editor!), they should be hard blocked, and that's when this template is used. RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
This is just a simple template saying the username has been blocked. We could say the same about {{uw-ublock}}. For uw-ublock, you could just use {{uw-block1}}. I agree that we shouldn't have too many templates, but this one is frequently used by many admins because it's a quick way to block users since it doesn't require anything like amount of block or violation. Lucas, good job uw-ifying. What should we name it? I'm thinking {{uw-uhb}}. RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have a new proposal for template layout that fixes the left float problem. The original layout is used by some users mainly because it helps organize templates neatly. The problem with it is that the left float doesn't work as seen in the previous sections and archives of this talk page. The new layout I propose helps correct the left float issue that affects the current layout due to MediaWiki restrictions. It basically adds a <br> at te end of each warning/comment. Example here. Any comments? --Hdt83Chat08:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Just my humble opinion, but I think the numbering makes it easier for admins to see at a glance just how many warnings a user has gotten. Not everyone uses these templates with the cutesy icons— some write their own warnings or have their own templates w/out icons— and the numbering makes those warning show up better in a count of the warnings. Also using the bullets indents the templates and groups them compactly so it's more obvious what month heading they're under. I think the current layout just looks plain neater; the miniscule extra space between the lines of text is as unnoticable as the arrow between the "E" and the "x" in FedEx unless it's pointed out. Talk pages are loaded with spacing issues because of sub/superscripting in signatures etc. Since I don't think the extra spacing is an issue with helping or hindering admins from evaluating whether a user should be blocked and since I do think that the number list does help admins, I'd rather keep the numbered list.—Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Elipongo. Having used the current recommended layout for nearly two years, I think the spacing caused by the icons is a minor detail in comparison to the advantages of the current layout (see above and in the archives). I would prefer if we didn't have the fluffy icons at all, but I guess that's that. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:40:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed (exept the fluffiness as per usual)), you just have to look through most of my blocks to realise I prefer this system. Khukri16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What about this?
Addition to block template
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I noticed some vandals like to blank their usertalk page after they've been blocked or replace the page with attacks directed at Wikipedia. I think the {{blocked}} template and any other similar templates should have a notice or a line that says: Note that if you blank your usertalk page and/or issue attacks directed Wikipedia, you will not be able to edit the talkpage and thus lose your ability to request unblock. So, how about it? Hydrogen Iodide18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the current consensus is that you are permitted (though discouraged from) removing notices on your talk page. Posting attacks is more actionable, but I think adding this language might put ideas in the heads of vandals. I suggest simply removing attacks if posted and protect if they persist.--Kubigula(talk)18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I noticed that there wasn't a uw template for users who are using Wikipedia as a social network (ex. only making userpage edits, etc) so I created one. User:Hdt83/socialnetwork. Feel free to improve on it and discuss. --Hdt83Chat07:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, even though I would in the past said that this is more likely to be a personal message, I'm seeing more and more editors or more precisly people who edit only their talk pages, using wikipedia as some form of my space. I've seen some admins block and delete these types of pages under citing Wikipedia is not. If you a agree I imght tweak saying that these types of pages may be deleted, as they are not part of Wikipedia's goals. Khukri07:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead and add that. I keep seeing more userpages in the mfds that are the users only contribs so it would be a good idea to warn them that there pages will most likely be deleted. --Hdt83Chat22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
Hi guys,
Having done warnings for nigh on 10 months I've removed myself from active in this project, to start working elsewhere. I won't be keeping an eye on the pages as I'll want to dabble, but any questions don't hesitate to ask. Traa fer now. Khukri13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hope you'll come back as this project has come a long way with you in it. Thanks for all your work here. Good luck. :) --Hdt83Chat07:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Putting <br> after last warning and left float the stop hand icons
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments1 person in discussion
Since the stop hand icon is the biggest (30px) and used for the last warning. I have a new proposal that would remove that extra whitespace that occurs when the sentence gets too long and it also looks better and emphasizes the "last warning" part. --Hdt83Chat21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Heres how they look with the other warnings together:
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Hdt83Chat21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.--Hdt83Chat21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Hdt83Chat21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
For the other warnings using the stop hand we just put the left back in.
Without <br>
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. --Hdt83Chat21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Hdt83Chat21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
With <br>
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. --Hdt83Chat21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Hdt83Chat21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The numbered list is there and is a lot neater courtesy of the added space between each warning. The left float works correctly for all of the icons and everything is neat. This may be a good solution. Any comments? --Hdt83Chat05:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Layout
Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
Hi, yes a few editors do you use this system, and more importantly there are editors who spend time just going round talk pages doing the tidying. There's some comments about this two sections up from this one. Khukri16:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I use the layout as well, and frequently tidy pages on my watchlist with this format. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:30:56, 04 May 2007 (UTC)
I often do the same ... but perhaps that is because I do not find two year old warnings for school IP's very useful [6]. However if it is an anonymous editor and was their first warning, I generally title the section Your test worked or Vandalism followed by the warning template. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The recommended layout does not have consensus. I vehemently disagree with deleting the record of warnings more than 3 months old, and especially disagree with deleting past block notices, for two reasons:
When vandalism occurs from a school IP address, an administrator is helped by past block notices to determine the length of time to block.
I have seen many cases where an anonymous IP address shows the same pattern of vandalism for many months at a time, indicating the same person is doing it. Many anonymous IP addresses are also statically assigned to residential customers, and edits from such addresses will be from the same person. There is no point to deleting old warnings that apply to the same user.
Old warnings and block notices constitute a useful record for anyone who comes across a vandal's talk page. I see no rational basis for removing them. I propose that this part of the Layout recommendation be modified accordingly. -Amatulic18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's much simpler (and more accurate) to see how often and how long an account has been blocked using the block log. As for old warnings, a simple click on the history tab will show how many warnings a talk page has gotten... most edits that aren't marked maintenance will be warnings or blocks, there's not even a need to open the diffs. Besides, we should be more interested in what someone's done lately rather than >90 days ago (ancient history in Wiki time). Just my own opinion, anyway —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 19:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It may be more accurate to look at the block log, but in my experience, a blocking admin will look at what's already on the talk page rather than the block log, to determine the proper blocking duration. That is, I've seen many cases where the duration isn't escalated for users where the block notices have been removed.
I still haven't seen a rational argument for removing the warnings and notices from the page and relying on the edit history. It's no burden to scroll down to the bottom of a talk page. If there's consensus to clean up talk pages, I'd say at least leave the block notices, the same way we leave the notices for indef blocked users. -Amatulic22:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't noticed that many of the admins who patrol WP:AIV pay attention to a user's contributions from two hours ago much less from three months ago. The whole point of the layout is to clean things up so that the admin can see the recent patterns of editing, having a clutter of warnings and block notices from months ago makes that harder. Remember, WP:AIV is only for blatant and simple cases, if you come across an account that has a long term pattern of abuse, you should more properly tag it with {{Repeat vandal}} and bring it to WP:ANI and perhaps also list the account at Wikipedia:Long term abuse.—Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Right but by that logic, one couldn't "come across an account that has a long term pattern of abuse" for that pattern would have already been removed. I patrol recent changes and I've noticed that anonymous IP vandals sometimes vandalize the exact same pages in a similar way they did months ago, as evidenced on their user talk page, so I start with a higher warning template-- there's no sense in letting a vandal continuously make a couple changes to the same article every couple months with the warnings starting from scratch. I don't have time to go through the talk page history to see if previous warnings have been removed every time I warn an IP vandal. I completely agree that it's irrational to remove previous warnings / blocks. -superβεεcat19:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that we should archive warnings that are older than 6 months because they are confusing to both the people receiving the warnings and the admins who block them. Having to scroll down several months of warnings can be frustrating for many people as well as the fact that most of the old warnings have nothing to do with the newer ones. In addition, for the layout, I say we get rid of the layout since it dosen't reflect a consensus of the majority of users on Wikipedia. A look at the history of AIV shows every blocked user's talk page warnings does not use this layout. --Hdt83Chat23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Two quick comments then a question...
Comments: Hdt83, the current guide is to remove warnings older than 3 months, with the intention of exactly what you're looking for; old warnings have nothing to do with the newer ones when it comes to shared IPs. Also, just because every blocked user's talk page doesn't use this layout doesn't mean that the layout doesn't reflect the consensus of the majority of Wikipedians; that just means nobody has got around to that IP's talk page yet to arrange it according to the layout.
Question: Ok, so... what's the result of this discussion? It's been a week since the last comment, so I thought I'd ask now that it's died down. May I resume removing warnings older than 3 months without archival from shared IP talk pages according to the stated layout? --Geniac12:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think we should change the {{uw-afd}} templates so they can be used for warning users for removing deletion notices from any page. I mean, deletion notices could be removed from any page, not just articles. If changed, the templates could look like the following below. Feel free to improve:
Level 1:
Welcome to Wikipedia. It would be appreciated if you would not remove deletion notices from pages, or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of a page, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.
Level 2:
Please do not remove deletion notices from pages or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.
Level 3:
Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Level 4:
This is your last warning. The next time you remove deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
I don't see afd notices being removed often but I do see other tags being removed especially speedy deletion, so I think they they should be moved. Oysterguitarist07:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Warning levels
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The warning levels say that you will be blocked if you vandalize again but I think that should be changed to may because sometimes you will not always be blocked like if you gave a bad AIV report. Oysterguitarist20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
So you mean instead of this:
Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
it should be changed to this:
Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
It sounds like a good idea for lv3 warnings. For lv4, it should still be "will" since it already says "last warning". --Hdt83Chat08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This all comes down to editors issing lvl 4 templates, wrongly I might add, as the first template. If someone receives the full monty of warnings, there is no ambiguity about them being blocked and very little chance of false AIV reports being issued. Editors who have been issued with warnings through misunderstanding or a content dispute, usually try and enter into dialogue with their warner prior to it getting to lvl4. Now if someone is given a lvl 4 which says they will be blocked and then for one reason or other a block isn't ensuing, this I would suggest is the fault of the issuer and not the system. This is why lvl 3 is you maybe blocked and lvl 4 is you will be blocked. For the amount of times this would be erroneous, I would suggest leaving it as 'will be' blocked, as this is applicable to way more vandals than problems that might arise. Cheers Khukri11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I just created the single issue notice Template:Uw-3o, for editors who list a dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion in a wrong way. This happens to about three editors a day. I would be glad if an experienced user warning editor could look over and see if I've done this right. Thanks, User:Krator (tc) 18:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't really seem to fit the scope of the user warning project. The template is about making a mistake with a Wikipedia process. We're trying to keep the uw- space organized and small (i.e. only having the warnings we need). The template itself is good, but please consider moving it out of the uw- space (such as "Template:3o-mistake"). --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with R that this is probably not the right place for this template. Perhaps the WP:3O page would be a better place to house it?--Kubigula(talk)04:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism directly after being being blocked
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have created Template:Uw-recentblockwarn because often I see users who are blocked for vandalism of Wikipedia come back almost immediately after being blocked. Often, they vandalize the same article in a similar fashion before the block which indicates a persistent vandal. This template was designed for IP addresses where vandalism often comes back after a block and AGF is out of the question as it is obviously the same user (most IPs cant be indef blocked). What do you think of it? --Hdt83Chat05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I havent any real objection, but a regular uw-4 with a special message added would seem to do as well. DGG (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
As I've worked with most of you for a while and respect your opinions (even though I've made myself absent from here) I thought I get some input from you lot. I came across this whilst blocking someone today, and I know we've refused all templates of this sort in the past. Is this an MfD case or the fact it's in so call user space give it any protection User:Ratiocinate/admin-report. Thoughts please? Cheers as ever Khukri15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would first try just explaining to Ratiocinate the reasons we avoid templates like that and asking them to {{db-user}} it; if the username is an indication of character they will probably do so. If they refuse, then an MFD might be appropriate. Anomie16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I proposed the addition of two templates to UTM on the UTM talk page. I'm not certain which of these talk pages is more appropriate for the proposal, which follows up on various conversations here and there, so I am cross posting here. Feel free to comment.--Kubigula(talk)19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
New template, dunno if you want it or not
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I've found myself having to explain quite a bit lately why FU images are not acceptable on BLPs, I just made a template for it at {{User:Lucid/blpi}}. {{uw-blpi}} would be a more convineant link, as well as having the link available through TW, but mainly I think the project might benefit from it. --lucid00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Saying that the edits are "vandalism" is clearly unfounded; vandalism is strictly defined as deliberate damage to Wikipedia. Merely stating that the edit has been reverted is enough. -- intgr[talk]11:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You're free to change it, I just lifted one of the other uw templates and changed the text around some. --lucid11:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that I would be less likely to take offense to a violation of policy, if that policy is briefly explained right in the warning. How about:
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted. Whenever possible, Wikipedia seeks to use free content; a non-free image is acceptable only when there is no free replacement available. In a biography of a living person, there is almost always some possibility of obtaining a free replacement; this example is specifically addressed in our guidelines. Please do not add fair use images to biographies of people who are still alive. Thank you.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Alright, I get sick of anonymous vandalizers that continuously blank out their talk page of multiple warnings (about 3 or more). Although this isn't against policy, it is very inconvenient for users warning people since we have to look at the history of the talk page, or we sometimes think that this is a first offense while they actually should get a level 4 warning. Why not try something like this?
Welcome to Wikipedia. It appears that you have had multiple warnings in the past that you now deleted. This change has been reverted so that users will not incorrectly warn you in the future. Although deleting your warnings isn't against Wikipedia policy, try to archive your talk page instead to make it easier to see your warning history. Thank you.
This would only be a notice, and would not get any higher than this level, and a user couldn't get blocked for this offense, it would just be a reminder to archive rather than blank the page. Leave your comments please! —Signed by KoЯnfan71My TalkSign Here!17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a waste of energy. Talk page blankers will simply blank this as well, as I suspect they have very little concern over whether they get warned correctly in the future. Talk page blanking does make proper warning and blocking a little more work, but it does have the advantage of confirming that the person has seen the prior warnings - which is helpful considering the ongoing IP talk page bug.--Kubigula(talk)19:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago28 comments7 people in discussion
I have recently noticed vandals, especially sockpuppets, like to place {{block}} on unblocked users, including users that don't have a single warning and do RC patrol. It seems like the vandal wants to scare users by putting that template on the user or user talk page. I think there should be a warning or at least a notice to users who intentionally misuse the template in such a manner. Hydrogen Iodide04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
People who do that most of the time of are trolls. If we go with a template I think it should be single level warning them about doing that and if they continue report them to AIV, cause trolls just want a reaction from others. Oysterguitarist04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hypothetically, if an admin forgot to put a block template on a user they blocked, then a non-admin should be able to put up the template for them. I don't see this as a particularly common occurance, though. Most non-admin placements of block templates I have seen have been by novice users who think that putting the template on the page actually blocks the user. I've also seen novice users try the same thing with article (semi)protection templates. I think that in the case of good faith placement of these templates by new editors, a personal note about how only admins can do such actions with a link to the appropriate forum (e.g. WP:AIV or WP:RFPP) would be most appropriate. In the case of bad faith placement then I think that the {{uw-upv}} or simply the {{uw-vandalism1}} series would work just fine. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I was leaning towards agreeing with Elipongo that a new template was not really necessary. However, I have to admit that the proposed template could be useful as it's broad enough to cover misuse of any warning template, not just the block. If we do go forward with the template, I think a single template is sufficient; escalation can be dealt with by the regular vandalism templates.--Kubigula(talk)22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I made a bold revision of the template - feel free to revert if you don't like it. I think it should be flexible enough to be a first or subsequent warning, so I removed the "welcome" and tried to strike a balance between a level one and a level two. The prior version was more of a mix between a level one and a level three. As I said, feel free to revert or edit mercilessly.--Kubigula(talk)23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the template so far (no change):
A recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning template. Please note that inappropriate use of warning templates may appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
For a single-issue template, it really, really fails to assume good faith. This leaves it open to abuse and accustions-of-malicious-templating flamewars. GracenotesT§02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gracenotes--if there is a problem, this will make it worse. Better to write a very tactful message. 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Gracenotes and DGG make good points. The potential misuse of a warning template will either come from: (1) a new well-meaning user, who should get a true WP:AGF level one template; (2) a vandal, who can be addressed with regular vandalism templates; or (3) a "regular", who should receive a personalized note in this situation. If we can't tell if the editor is a well-meaning user or a vandal, then we need to AGF. So, we can either drop back and make this a true level one template, or simply declare this a situation that requires a personalized message. It seems like it could be a useful template, but I have to say that I can't personally recall a situation where I wished I had this template available.--Kubigula(talk)03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK - you guys have made your point. I think several of the above could have been handled with the regular vandalism templates, but there does seem to be some demand for a template misuse template. Unless there are additional insights, I will modify it to a true level one template. Template misuse beyond that should, IMO, be dealt with as regular vandalism or with a personal message.--Kubigula(talk)04:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's usually vandalism, but it can be a novice not understanding how templates are supposed to be used. Even if it is vandalism, we have many templates that are really just more specific versions of the vandalism warnings - i.e. vandalism warnings tailored to the specific conduct (delete, joke, upv etc). So, the question is whether it's worth having another template geared towards this specific conduct. As there are a number of editors above who seem to want such a template, I think it's probably worth having.--Kubigula(talk)13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The template so far (about 2/3 month later):
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a blocking or warning template. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.
I'm planning to follow up on two proposed templates at WT:UTM - which I think has a bit wider audience. I'll try to get to it tomorrow and cross post it here.--Kubigula(talk)02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
After seeing many blocked vandals playing and fooling around with {{unblock}}, I think there should be a sentence added to the block templates. It should read something like: "Please note misuse of {{unblock}} will result in talk page protection and therefore you will lose the ability to request an unblock" or something like that. I think this will let the person who is requesting an unblock know that abusing the template will result in loss of unblock requesting. Comments? Hydrogen Iodide(HI!)00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I've been modifying IP talk pages per the warning format in this article. However, I have noticed the pound sign is not always creating a numbered list. Here is an example. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindEagle (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It seem to be a problem with IE and how it formats the pound sign. Unfortunatly, IE is not completely CSS compatible thus many things often show up wierd on Wikipedia. 71.112.252.21022:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed [7]. Prior to May, most of our warning templates included "|left" in the image tag, which often mangled the spacing of the warnings. By removing these entries and changing the "<br> :If this is a shared IP" line to "#: If this is a shared IP", everything sorted out correctly. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
If a user is being generally uncivil, but not at users, which warning would i use? I think AGF is only if they are uncilvil towards users. Or should a uw template be created on civility in comments? Simply south22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he or she is simply just not a nice person :) Civility is personally targeted behavior. Taming conversation to a level you feel comfortable with will certainly produce a better environment here, but creating a template that essentially says "I was offended by your use of the word 'fuck', and if you keep using sarcasm they gon' block you" will probably cause more problems (and it's not really covered in policy). GracenotesT§23:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking more neutral as:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please remain civil when commenting on an article's talk page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you..
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. However, please remain civil when commenting on an article's talk page. Thank you. Thank you..
I think it would be better to just leave them a note on their talk page, instead of a template. That way you could tell them exactly how they were being in civil. Oysterguitarist17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Wording of uw-test1 with parameters
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The {{uw-test1}} thanks the user for experimenting with Wikipedia, and gently points them towards the sandbox. This is as it should be: we do want users to experiment with editing, and hope that their experiments will encourage them to become productive editors.
However, when an article name is provided as an optional parameter, the template, as it is currently written, thanks the user for experimenting with that article. In particular, the current text of {{subst:uw-test1|Example}} reads:
“
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Example on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
”
This seems a bit silly. On one hand we seemingly thank the user for choosing Example as the page to experiment on; on the other, we later say they should use the sandbox instead. I recently modified the template so that, given the same parameter, it instead read:
“
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Example worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Approve I think the new version is less silly. I wish there were some way of softening the I have reverted your edits because you're a worthless newbie. feeling I get from it. But, I agree, it is less silly. --BlindEagletalk~contribs20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion - works for me too. I don't see a need for further softening, as this template should really only be used if someone is pretty clearly making an unconstructive edit, yet one that doesn't quite rise to the {{uw-v1}} level.--Kubigula(talk)22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I support the change. The wording is better so that users don't misinterpret a message that is thanking them. --Hdt83Chat22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
"Messages should be removed without archival after three months or less, depending on the number of warnings. In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed."
It seems to me that the 3 month rule is a little short. For example, take this user. If everything after 3 months is deleted, then it appears to the casual warner that he's only had 1 warning. Perhaps 1 year or 10 warnings (or some sort of combination) might be a better cut-off? Ben Hocking(talk|contribs)15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the block log helps to keep track of that kind of stuff. Personally I wash IP talk pages when I issue a long block (ie more than a month). The next admin will see the log before blocking. -- lucasbfrtalk23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Just curious why we need to remove the warnings at all? If the person is a repeat offender, it shows a pattern of behavior. If this person stops the vandalism, it also shows good faith and improvement. To me, if we remove the warnings after 3 months we should also remove the Barnsters. But, I would assume everyone would be against that as well. --BlindEagletalk~contribs12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
With anonymous IP's the user changes, with barnstars they don't. If an anonymous IP has 10 or 50 warnings this will not change the warning editors opinion, they will usually either reach straight away for the bv or lvl4 templates. I don't think one can put an arbitrary amount of time we should leave message on, but leave enough so that any visiting editor knows it is a troublesome IP. I personally remove everything prior to this year, if there are alot of warnings, but other admins do other things. When we examine the offending editor I always look in the history for warning removals, and then when the block is being applied we automatically see the block log.
The other side of this is that the number warnings are on the page is irrelevant IMHO, as the person on that IP has every right to come along and delete them all themselves, hence admins tend to look in the history anyway.Khukri13:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I can see how the admin tools could really help out in that regards for blocking. And, I can see your point about people "usually" going for the uw-v4 template if they see a lot of activity. But, do we design a policy because of people not paying attention to the dates where activity ocurred? If an IP is having vandal issues, does it mean that it has to come from one person? I guess I see an IP vandal as a signle entity no matter if there are multiple vandals behind the IP or not. --BlindEagletalk~contribs15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If an IP talk page is becomming too huge, I just do a quick cut-paste archive to get rid of the old, cluttery stuff. Reason is twofold; getting a "You have new messages" boilerplate and clicking to the IP talk page not every anonymous editor will instinctively scroll down 10 screens of warnings to get to the most recent one - I imagine a lot of beginners won't read past the fold, particularly if you expect to read a message and warnings from 2005 are displayed. Secondly, due to the inherent nature of shared IP addresses and warnings going to innocent editors, it really bites the newbies to see all those warnings and blocks displayed. An example is User talk:192.43.227.18 which I archived today. --Brenotalk14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
shared IP babble
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
Anyone know which vandal tool keeps adding the If this a shared IP... comment to the bottom of every template. I'm now deleting them when I see them, as it messes up warning layouts, and if the statement is on the page once and it has been ignored there is no need to add it to every bloody template. That is what anonymous IP headers are all for. Khukri12:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
S'ok to have it once on a page, but whilst tidying a page just now I removed about 10 of them. Should be a header, I'll leave a message. Khukri12:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd be surprised by the number of people that want to me feeling insulted because I gave "them" a warning 6 months ago :). That's the reason why I keep the boilerplate reminder. -- lucasbfrtalk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be added to the {{s/wnote}} template that goes on the top of the page (under warnings) instead? (As an option, of course. This template is not used only for IP addresses.) Ben Hocking(talk|contribs)17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It can be turned off by users by putting Twinkle config into their monobook.js file. The instructions on how to do this are over on WP:TWINKLE; the one you're looking for is called showSharedIPNotice and setting to false. Personally, I turned this off immediately as notices such as SharedIP at the top of the talk page explain things already. Having this boilerplate 50 times down through the warnings just increases clutter. --Brenotalk14:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the numbering useful?
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This comment was originally a reply in the thread above. It's enough different from the other questions that it seems better as a separate thread. I remain unconvinced about the numbering. I've now seen it on some pages and not on others. I've not yet seen a page where the numbering made the warnings easier to scan. I don't think that it is just the technical layout problem that was addressed before - it's a more fundamental question of whether it helps future readers or not. So far, even where implemented perfectly, it's making the pages harder for me to read, not easier. Rossami(talk)15:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally dislike the numbering layout too as it makes warning cluttered. The number list is great for short words or sentences but not for warnings with icons and text that take up several lines. The numbering system also breaks the left float of the icons which I also dislike. --Hdt83Chat21:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
So if no one else has any objections, I propose changing the "standardized" layout to this one:
Layout
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Someone recently pointed me to this page. I've been patrolling for vandalism for a long time and appreciate the need for standardization, especially on anon user talk pages. But I strongly dislike some of the advice given in the Layout section. Specifically:
This page advises the addition of {{s/wnote}} at the top of the user's page. That template, however, is not targetted to the anon user - it is written as advice for the people leaving the warnings. Early in a case, that seems inappropriate to me. The notes should be directed to the user first. Other authors/editors are a secondary audience. If substituting of the templates is so vital, do it by adding code to the warning templates that will force the substitution. (I believe the AFD templates use code like that. If you forget to substitute, you get immediate and very visual feedback.)
That template also adds links to the block log and other investigative resources but if the user has not yet been blocked, this template seems premature. I prefer the wording and layout of the {{repeatvandal}} template. I also think that adding it at the point that the vandal has been blocked a second time is probably about right.
The format shown has the warnings numbered using the # code. That throws off the left-justification of some of the templates and made it more difficult to read rather than easier.
I'll also mention that the one time I saw used on a vandal's page, the numbering was not at all helpful. What's important to me is not the total number of warnings but the escalation of warnings across time and a sense for whether the warnings were placed by hand or were bot-enabled. 3 warnings in close succession are far more relevant than 8 warnings separated by significant periods. To understand that, you need to scan the signatures. The numbers at the left were a significant distraction to me.
The advice on this page also recommends that warnings be purged into page history after 3 months. That is far too short. It might be appropriate if the vandal has actually reformed but it is often very useful to look at a longer history of warnings to determine if a block is appropriate and, more importantly, if an escalation in block duration is needed. Given the increase in our need for and use of schoolblocks, I recommend keeping the warnings for at least a year so you can get some insight into the next school session. Yes, I know that the history isn't really lost but looking into page history is too high a burden. Chasing down vandals isn't fun. Making it harder is not a way to make us more likely to do a good job.
If/when warnings are archived off, the page lists it as optional to add a note saying so and, worse, advises that the note be made in the edit summary. I consider a notice of archived warnings essential and believe that it belongs on the Talk page itself. If you don't give me at least a clue that there's something to look for in the pagehistory, I'm not going to think to do so. Again, if the vandal is truly reformed, warnings can be removed more judiciously but for anon user pages, we need a longer record. Remember that if the anon user currently reading the page wasn't the actual vandal, he/she can almost always create an account and avoid seeing them all. (Now, maybe a standard template to that effect would be helpful at the top of the page - but that's already in many of the sharedIP template variants.)
While I cannot answer all of these, I may be able to shed some light on some of them:
1. To the best of my knowledge, no one implements the layout (including the {{s/wnote}}) until after the second warning or later. My presumption is because WP:AGF would preclude the layout/note on a first level warning.
3. The numbered layout issue was largely resolved sometime first quarter this year when we removed the "left" justify on the images in the various templates. However some anti-vandal tools are hard-coded to include the left justifications, which requires them to be removed manually by later editors. (See #Warning format and #shared IP babble above.)
5 & 6. I am not aware of any admin who uses four or five month old warnings when formulating blocks, especially since WP:AIV requires that "the vandal is active now." In my experience, most admins look at previous blocks and the current month's edits when determining block duration.
Regarding points 5 and 6, I've found that a simple, common-sense rule tends to work much better than any hard limit:
If you think it's the same vandal that was warned before (e.g. similar vandalism to same articles), leave the old warnings in place and add a next-level one (or block / notify WP:AIV).
If it looks like a new user who just happened to get an IP previously used by a vandal (e.g. newbie editing tests after month-old subtle template vandalism, with some typo corrections in between), replace the old warnings with a simple level 1 notice and leave a note in the edit summary.
If childish vandalism resumes after an intervening break with some good edits, chances are you've found a school IP. Investigate (whois, RDNS) and tag with {{SharedIPedu}} if applicable.
The important thing to keep in mind is that not all IPs are alike. Some nominally dynamic IPs stay with the same user for months or even years, others change owners every few hours. Some shared IPs are shared by two people, some by a thousand or perhaps even millions. (I once indefinitely hardblocked a proxy apparently shared by everyone in the United Arab Emirates. Fortunately the matter got fixed quickly.) Thus, it's hard to come up with a simple one-size-fits-all rule. All I can suggest is using common sense and thinking about who's likely to see the warnings and how they'll react to it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see Rossami's second point or Kralizec's first point added to the Layout guideline, since I've been making the mistake of adding {{s/wnote}} too early. Unfortunately, I don't gain common sense unless it's written down somewhere :-P Lisatwo12:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
To Kralizec!'s point, I always try to look to the old warnings in order to verify that the previous blocks were justified and to scan for more clear patterns. The block log is helpful but not always definitive. This scenario most often occurs for me when a vandalism recurs immediately upon the expiration of a schoolblock. Since most serious schoolblocks are set to run through the term of the year, a hard three-month rule obscures all that history. I agree with Ilmari Karonen that common sense should prevail. To me, that means taking away the recommended timeline and making it clearer that the decision to archive is nuanced and is the responsibility of the admin making the decision. Ilmari's detailed thoughts are probably too detailed for the instructions page but they are a much better description of the optimal process than the current advice to "remove without archival after three months or less". I propose changing the wording of the layout section to the following. I would appreciate thoughts or corrections. Rossami(talk)15:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Current wording
Proposed wording
Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings", with the template {{subst:s/wnote}} below the main heading.
User warnings and block messages should be placed without line breaks.
Messages should be removed without archival after three months or less, depending on the number of warnings. In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed.
Optionally, the standardised edit summary is either ( [[WP:UW|maintenance]] ) or ([[WP:UW|maintenance]], removed old warnings).
Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings". Note: If there have been multiple warnings, add the template {{s/wnote}} (or {{repeatvandal}} if the account has been repeatedly blocked) at the top of the Warnings section.
User warnings and block messages should be placed without line breaks.
Old warnings may be archived into page history when they are no longer useful. Give consideration to the vandal's history when deciding how long to leave warnings visible. Always note the archiving of old warnings. In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed.
Looks good to me. I might suggest replacing "the vandal's history" with "the IP's contribution history", since IPs may be shared and since it's not just the vandalistic edits that are relevant. But that's just a minor detail. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The Layout says to leave s/wnote and also to note the archiving of old warnings. This seems redundant, as s/wnote includes a link to the page history. --Geniac14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's slightly redundant but think that the link on the s/wnote template is the one to fix/remove. Just being dumped into the pagehistory is not very helpful to the future reader. It's very hard to know where to start looking. In a perfect world, you would scan the edit summaries to see when the archiving was done. And sometimes that works. But at least equally often, well-intentioned editors forget or omit the edit summary or use some cryptic comment that makes sense in the immediate context of the discussion but doesn't make any sense to future readers scanning the pagehistory. The instructions for archiving into page history, on the other hand, give you a nice clean permalink that can be piped into a standard archive box or noted in a single line on the page. From there, any future reader can easily find the version of the page at the point that it was archived. I thought about boldly streamlining the s/wnote template a bit but wasn't sure where else or how else that template is being used. Rossami(talk)18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree being dumped into the history isn't helpful. How about changing action=history to a parameter, oldid=X, where X is the oldid of the version of the talk page to link to. For example, adding {{subst:s/wnote|oldid=163469919}} on this talk page would make the 'page history' link display as page history. --Geniac18:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete page
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I created the overview page many many moons ago, when I thought it would be possible to have a completely harmonised warning system. Naive I know, but some people still and I think will always prefer the fragmented system, be it because they don't like icons, the wording, etc. Recently a new editor saw this page and started to act upon my suggestions, being bold and all that. I don't want these ideas to cause a problem in future, so I'm tempted to delete this page, unless anyone has any objections. I could pass it by WP:MFD, but you lot have more idea about what this relates to than there. Cheers Khukri12:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I sometimes refer to and update the overview. Complete harmonization is probably not possible, but I think we can still do a bit more towards that goal. There are some good suggestions on the overview page that probably ought to be implemented. So, I think it has value.--Kubigula(talk)16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
April 2007
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
I don't have strong feelings about the numbering system, but I think the headers should be subheaders underneath Warnings, which the "underlined headers" fail to accomplish. Ben Hocking(talk|contribs)02:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While I prefer the numbers, I can see -and live with it- either way. However I feel we should keep the months as sub-headings of Warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I also prefer the numbered system, there are a few of us who do it and it when visiting a page that has been properly formatted, does make my life as as the blocking admin alot easier. But like Kralizec, I can live without it. Khukri07:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't care whether to use the numbered system or not. However, if the format drops the number system, then I would prefer that there be line breaks between warnings: I thought the only purpose of not having line breaks was to make sure that the warning numbers actually increased instead of being 1. i.e., if the numbering system is dropped, then I would like to have under the headers:
warning
: comment
:: another comment
warning
warning
Earlier in this discussion I said that I could live without the numbering, but after doing a few more warnings (including the new archiving guidelines), I have to say that the numbering really makes it nicely organized and a lot more readable. This is significantly easier on my eyes vs. this. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I could take or leave the numbering, but either way, the monthly headings should stay as subheadings under Warnings, IMO. If the numbering is dropped, we would need an empty line between each warning. --Geniac14:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example without the numbering: [8]. It looks pretty clean and the spaces between each warning helps improve readability tremendously. Editing the page is also easier on the eyes. --Hdt83Chat21:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 October 2007 -->? Would it be possible to add it to all of the user warning templates? PxMa21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you realize how many bots this would break? Many bots expect it to be in that format. Perhaps something less drastic like putting that in its own hidden text? For example:
Er, warning messages are signed, and signatures include the date. Unless you're proposing not signing warning messages, in which case please don't, that's just stupid – Gurch21:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Including the <!-- Date:{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}/{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} --> would be extremely helpful for anti vandal tools though. PxMa22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Why can't said anti-vandal tools just look a few characters further on and parse the signature timestamp? It's not hard – Gurch22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Apperently writing <!-- Date:{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}/{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} -->, doesn't work. It treats {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} as how it treats text, so this idea won't work.--Sunny910910(talk|Contributions)23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
So, again... why is "<!-- Date: October 2007 -->" any different to "08:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)"? – Gurch08:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspect it is easier to parse, and warnings are ueually grouped by month. So why not if it's useful to someone? :) -- lucasbfrtalk11:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The only real reason I can see for this is because it is easier in terms of programming to grab the warning level along with the date if they are right next to each other. However, with advanced matching tools like regular expressions, which are available in almost every programming language, it is not really that difficult. I will even give you a regular expression that will do exactly what you want:
If you match that globally against the talk page, you will get several result sets, each with a warning and a date. Group 1 is the warning level (1-4), group 2 is the hour, group 3 is the minute, group 4 is the day, group 5 is the month (written out), group 6 is the year. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn)18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Can we have some standard warnings for this category? There appears to be a non-standard one ({{attack}}) but it could do with being brought within the folds of uw-* with relevant levels including a single issue warning. → AA(talk) — 13:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I use the uw-create* series for that; if it's a blatant attack page, I'd usually skip straight to {{uw-create4im}} and use the additional text parameter to provide a link to WP:NPA or the like. --Darkwind (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I've been looking through the proposed changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview, and would like to start clearing the backlog. It seems like work on this has stalled recently. Is there any reason for this, or am I OK to go ahead and implement changes? I'll make a start on it, but I'm happy to revert if there are any objections. Papa November (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There have been some previous attempts to implement the suggestions that were met with resistence by editors who preferred the old templates to the new ones. I've been thinking we should allow more time for the uw system to get entrenched before implementing changes. However, now may be a good time to clean up some of this. My suggestion is to go slow and perhaps provide prior notice on the template talk pages.--Kubigula(talk)15:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I created that page many many moons ago, with a couple of others, on how we saw the uw- system evolving. As Kubigula said many people don't like a standardised system, mainly because of the icons. so us trying to change them has become almost a point of principle making a full switch over nigh on impossible. I've seen childish reasons for people not wanting to use them, though in fairness alot is just preference for what they know, or they think the icons make them look too kitsch even though all the icons can now be switched off. I offered to delete the page a while back, but a number of editors wanted to keep it as an idea of potential mappings and synergies. Someone did put a message on the top of the page, though I suggest it should be re-written in flaming great letters to discuss any of my proposed changes before implementing them, as someone will be sure to get upset. cheers Khukri16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have taken the liberty of creating a new warning tag, aimed at pages being used to host personal website content (blogs, personal Wikis, etc.) which don't quite seem to fall under the exact wording of {{uw-socialnetwork}}. Since I know diddly about tag design, I simply copied {{uw-socialnetwork}} and altered the wording slightly.
So:
1) Good idea generally?
2) Did I screw anything up?
I'd say the wording is somewhat better than {{uw-socialnetwork}}. I'd say the two templates are close enough in wording that we should try to design a version that covers both situations. I also suggest posting this at WT:UTM, which has a larger audience.--Kubigula(talk)03:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, this looks like an intersting group. I love all these warnings and want to join this project. Is anybody allowed to join or only by invitation? Thx for answerin. Stupid2 (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
When did we decide to put the |left into the level 4 templates?
Latest comment: 16 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion
Hello all. I had recently noticed that {{uw-vandalism4}} had the |left in it again, breaking the numbered layout. I deleted it only to have it replaced in less than 24 hours diff. In examining the template's history it seems that it was put in there on 24 July 2007 diff , just a couple of weeks after we had all decided to eliminate all the |lefts from the templates. It was also removed once on 20 September 2007 only to have it put back in again in similarly short order diff.
The 24 July edit didn't say that the |left was being put back in. I just spent some time searching the archives and I can't find where we decided to put the |left into the level 4 templates. Did I just miss it? I did take a semi-wikibreak during and for several weeks after the High Holidays, so maybe I did. All I know is that I've had *much* more success in getting sysops over at AIV to block users when I implement the numbered format versus any other way and I don't like to see the format broken. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The last time I was here consensus was to get rid of all |lefts, and I still support it unless some other issue has been brought up. It's not consistent to keep it in some and not others anyway. –Pomte03:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've added the hard coding back in, I didn't realize there was a discussion about it. I think the second line of text looks much better indented on the two final warning templates, and I don't really see the reason for them to be removed. The image on the level 4 templates is slightly larger than the others, so if the hard coding is removed it looks slighty awkward, in my opinion. Sorry for reverting, though, I didn't see anything on the talk page and probably should have looked here first. shoeofdeath (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted it back again, it may help if someone runs awb through the list again to make sure a few others haven't come back. Khukri07:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok, but I'm still not sure I understand why. Since July the hard left has been in there almost the entire time with no complaints, and every time it has been removed someone has quickly added it back. What percentage of people actually use this layout? I would estimate it be a very, very small one. And looking at the April conversation I certainly don't see a "consensus move to the numbered layout". Can this really still be the suggested layout if no one uses it? shoeofdeath (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
After long discussions on the topic, the current format was adopted in December 2006 [10]. My presumption is that the editors who have re-added the hard "|left" code are not aware of existing consensus on the issue. While we have not directly discussed the layout in some time, there were no notable objections to it when a dozen of us were working on the numbering issue in April this year. As to your final question, I have no idea how many people use the system, but regardless of how widely our layout guideline is used, it works very well at turning disorganized mishmash into neatly organized information. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As per the suggestion from Khukri, I ran AWB through the list and re-harmonized all of the warnings. In an attempt to encourage more discussion and preempt editors who feel that their version is better than the consensus version of the templates, I explicitly linked back to this project with every edit summary. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In short no, not until the numbered layout problem is sorted (see here). And before it gets mentioned again the numbered system can't be just thrown out until there is some consensus on the matter. Though my personal opinion is I'm using it less and less these days as I'm spending more time tidying talk pages than patrolling. As there is only a few of us who adhere to this structure, maybe it's time to bin it. No point having a system if no-one follows it. Khukri10:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If things are not super busy and WP:AIV does not have a backlog, I will apply the standardized format to a page when I do the block [11]. As an admin, I certainly appreciate it when the editor's talk page is already concise and cleanly organized. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I confess that I abandoned the numbered format. I remember clearly when I decided to abandon it, as well. It became apparent to me that every time I formatted a user's page in the numbered format, a bot came by that didn't respect it. As far as I can tell, there's not a single bot warning users that uses the numbered format. Generally, what I do now is to reformat by month. That seems to be about as much consistency as bots and other users will tolerate. — Dave (Talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I say that we should ditch the numbering format and put back the left alignment in the icons. The numbering format does not currently have consensus among most people. It may have had consensus in the past but as of right now, most talk pages being reported at WP:AIV do not follow this numbered layout. Going around reorganizing talk pages just because they don't follow a specific layout means that more time is wasted on frivolous details. A simple space break between each warning should be sufficient enough to organize warnings. --Hdt83Chat00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the reason I'd say that many people and bots don't use the format is because they likely don't know it exists. It's not posted at WP:UTM but rather only at our own project page. If the suggested format were to be placed on WP:UTM, I'd be willing to bet cash you'd see the usage go way up. Also, I'll say again that given the choice of abandoning the numbered list or the cutesy icons, my vote would be to ditch the icons. I don't see what all the obsession is about a nearly imperceptible gap in the lines of text, especially since so many editors' own signatures (see above) cause an even worse gap in the line spacing. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey all, I still think that the level 4 warnning icon looks ugly without the left align in ther. It dsonet seem like alot of people are using that numbered list so can we put the let back in at least for the stop hand icons? thx Stupid2 (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The suggested format hasn't even been up at WP:UTM for a week yet for editors to see it. I'd say let's give it a month or two to see if usage picks up. I would like to see if people will start to use it now that it's on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elipongo (talk • contribs) 15:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Unconnected archives?
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't have an issue with it but I think it would get little use as its more, and unnecessary, work. However, I could see it being used by bots if the bots are recoded for it.↔NMajdan•talk21:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that could be a nice addition, as sometimes a long diff can get cut off if you say anything *other* than the link; this would allow for a decent description and link. EVula// talk // ☯ //00:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If I recall corretly, uw- templates should have coding in them so that you can append an optional message to the end of a warning. {{subst:uw-vandalism4|Article|add your text here}} Perhaps the diff can simply be placed there? --Hdt83Chat09:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a great idea, though not sure how many would use it but could be added. As well as being used in the 2nd pasrser, it could be intergrated with the 1st parser, instead of saying "as you did to article", it could say as you did [diff= here]. Khukri18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
VandalProof adds a link to the diff after the subst'd warning. Anti-vandalism bots parse VandalProof warnings just fine: it's the <!-- Level --> and the timestamp (18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)) that they parse. Other semi-automated vandal software could add a link to the diff without needing it to be part of the template. GracenotesT§18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
These are an individual editors templates, not carried out by the UW project. If they are a problem as they are in template space they could be TfD'd if the editor was informed. There is no rule that all templates have to pass by the UW system, and is the main reason why we have the old system still in existence, as a few editors prefer to use those templates. Khukri09:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Past-last warning
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
When we revert vandalism by someone who already received a level 4 warning, any other warnings make it seem like, "Oh, we didn't really mean it when we said that was your last warning," like the parent who says, "This is the last time I'm going to tell you" five times before taking action. What about something like this?[12] Another big reason for suggesting this: So any admin responding to the AIV could see at a glance that the level 4 warning was for a violation earlier than the last one.
When a vandal keeps vandalizing the same article, I've seen admins make the mistake of thinking an edit since the warning was actually the edit for which they'd been warned, in which case the admin fails to block. If the AIV process consistently worked as smoothly and quickly as possible, nothing like this would be needed, but that's just not the case. Sometimes it takes a bit for the admin to research the case. In the meantime, the vandal just keeps vandalizing. This isn't just about the message we send the vandal. It's also about the message we send to any other users who might see all those pages where somebody got a "last" warning followed by several more warnings.
There was a similar template that was deleted on the grounds that it encouraged vandals to try to see how long they can vandalize Wikipedia before being blocked. Several other templates similar to the one you have proposed have also been suggested and rejected as well. See this archived disscussion for more details. --Hdt83Chat04:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but that example you cite refers to a "next time" after previously referring to a "last time". Of course that encouraged vandalism. It said that the "last time" message wasn't really the last time, after all, which is my original complaint about the current messages some vandal fighters are posting after level 4 warnings. Doczilla (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for a template that says "I've reported you!". If the report succeeds, an admin will shortly post a block notice on the page, and if not you just look dumb. It also could encourage the more perverse vandals to go on a vandalization spree before they get blocked. If an admin makes the mistake you describe, a polite message on the admin's talk page pointing out the error with links to the (many) vandalism diffs should correct the situation well enough. As for the admin taking a few minutes to review the situation, would you rather they block first and ask questions later? Anomie⚔12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Guys,
I mentioned this quite a while back, but since the project was started how ever long ago, and it's over a year since we went live with the uw- system of warnings, I think the project should move over to WP:UTM. Most of the die hards here and in UTM have both pages in their watchlists, but for those not in the know it means we have two points of interaction to discuss templated warnings, which is never ideal. The main goal of having a standardised system has been achieved for quite along time, and the warnings are stable.
Yes the old system does still exist, but you can never please all of the people all of them time, and leaving them where they are doesn't do any harm (yes I know of this), though we've tried to incorporate many of the points as possible, optional icons etc.
This project will continue to malinger along, and looking through the talkpages more and more questions are being addressed at UTM, so I think it's time we archived, moved it all over, merge any relevant parts on to the UTM page and then redirect. What do you think
Just a trip down memory lane for some of you as I was looking through the talkpages, look at some of the names who have gone.
I think you are right. At this point, this page and UTM address the same issues, so we just wind up with fractured discussions. It's time to archive.--Kubigula(talk)23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Signing
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The current article says 'Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings".'. Does that apply even when adding a warning to a talk page for the first time? --DocumentN (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Not really, the layout is only a recommendation and is only by a few editors and largely ignored by many (unfortunately), but mainly we try to keep the grouped by months at a minimum. Khukri21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm joining a little
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I’ve been studying these warnings when I have the time. The few I’ve looked at could be more clear about what they are, should include proof of what they claim, should explain how to improve, should all assume good faith, should be more polite, and should admit to being an opinion. I think they should admit to being an opinion -- because when someone says you did something when you don’t think you did, you feel like it’s a personal attack. I therefore will suggest ideas for improving the wording and usage of the warnings when I think of them. --Chuck Marean09:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There are editors who prefer the old system and they have been a bit peeved about some of the prior efforts to redirect or delete the old templates. I think we are at a bit of an impasse there, and I don't think boldness is the right move at the moment.--Kubigula(talk)04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The overview was a page I created many many many moons ago when we started the uw- project to keep track of new templates and to what they corresponded. I offered to delete it a while ago but most editors wanted to keep it, if for nothing else as a record. The old templates are a point of principle to some and would rather rather walk over coals than use the uw- system. We've incorporated most of the arguments used for why editors didn't use the uw- system such as optional icons etc. though some like BV, have slight nuance difference in wording. If you wanted to be bold, read through the archives then, become familiar with the arguments, then start a discussion at the village pump about removing the old system. Having been at this for a couple of years now, personally I'm too cynical to try nowadays. Cheers Khukri07:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Add the diff
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
In the subst part, instead of just the article name and additional text, why not add the diff into it too? It could get a little clunky, and people may not enjoy using it, but for some people like me, it'd be nice to have. Maybe TWINKLE could support it in one click still, much like VandalProof.
I agree. Is there any reason not allow a named diff parameter for all the templates? Note, that since it's named, it can't disrupt the numbered parameters. Superm401 - Talk06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's ever been an issue, though it's just finding someone to apply it across the board to all 130 templates. I think it only needs a minor tweak around the wording of the 1st parsered argument for the article, along the lines of
{{#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}{{#if:{{{diff|}}}| [:{{{diff}}} here]}}
Sorry. I've been off for awhile....I got to testing with this again, and I realized that these parsered things may not work with external links....Correct me if I'm wrong. Here you can find a version of a UW that I've been messing around with to see if I could get it to work. Feel free to edit it. When you think you may have it, just type in {{subst:User:Kornfan71/Sandbox|PARAMETERS HERE}} on this page and click the preview button. I'll try working with it and see what I get. Post on my talk page if you get anywhere with it. —Signed by KoЯnfan71My TalkSign Here!01:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly useful?
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi folks! I'd like your opinion on something. Recently, I've been having some success with my own combined {{uw-test1}} and {{welcome}} template. Of the hundred or so people I've used it on, virtually all have stopped (same as happens with test1, I'd imagine) but some have gone on to be surprisingly productive good-faith editors. Also, some clear wrong 'uns, who I'd've expected to breeze through the uw-tests in quick time have stopped dead on getting it - and that surprised me.
The template is as follows:
== Welcome to Wikipedia! ==
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for experimenting with with our encyclopedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ~~~~
Pretty basic, but it seems to work. Could a version of this be folded into your uw-series? {{uw-welcometest}} or the like? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks spot on from UW perspective. We didn't touch the welcome messages, as they were outside of the remit if the user warnings messages. Though that has a warning from here included, I would just bosh it in with the rest of the templates at Wikipedia:Welcome templates and add it to WP:UTM as well anyway. Khukri15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a good thing to have in the toolbox, particularly for a new editor whom you want to warn but who also has good contributions. I recently noticed a similar template, {{Welcomevandal}}, but I think one template of this kind is enough. We could, however, use a shortcut for uw-welcometest. How about {{uw-WT}}?--Kubigula(talk)03:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
won't make them do it, but it will make editing harder for some users and reading harder for administrators. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:20:11, 03 May 2007 (UTC)
for most and 
for the most severe (G10, G11, G12) might give the warnings some weight.
Please stop. One or more of your recent edits was to a page which is placed under article probation. All edits to this page must strictly follow Wikipedia's rules, especially keeping to a neutral point of view and not edit warring. Potentially controversial edits must first be proposed and debated on the talk page. If you continue you will be blocked from editing. Any editors making disruptive edits to pages on probation may be banned from those pages on sight.
You have been reported to Administrator's intervention against vandalism for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Hdt83 Chat 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
. PxMa 00:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Done It seems like no one opposes, so shortcuts for wrongsummary and tempabuse have been created. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Done - created shortcut for socialnetwork and added {{r from warning template}} to it. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 03:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)