This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I just saw that the uw-copyright series was deleted and redirected to {{cv}}. Did I miss something? I have mixed feelings about having a single issue template here. It is a bit harsh for newcommers in my opinion, they don't know they are doing something wrong. (Sorry if I bring a point that has already been discussed, I couldn't find it in the archives :)) -- lucasbfrtalk13:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two templates, {{Nothanks}} (or {{Nothanks-sd}}) and {{Cv}}, which were listed here before. More than that however, is inappropriate. If someone continues to upload copyrighted material after two warnings (really after one), they cannot be allowed to continue to do so and it cannot be built into the official sort of system created here that they be given five opportunities, with a warning after each one, to commit illegal actions on Wikipedia. I have now redirected {{uw-copyright1}} to {{Nothanks}} instead; it also happens to be much more explanatory and helpful than the new {{uw-copyright1}} which was apparently invented without any reference to already existing templates. —Centrx→talk • 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought a bit about it, I will try to make a 2 levels templates, level 1 being AGF (a mix between the previous lv1 and nothanks) and level 4 being basically {{Cv}}. What do you think? -- lucasbfrtalk09:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ripped of the 2 old templates. Here's the result. I propose to use the first one for level 1 and the second one will be level 4. levels 2 and 3 would redirect to level 4. What do you think? -- lucasbfrtalk17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to squeeze mention of "not linking to copyright violations either" into one of these templates, or to create a new singlelevel one for such purpose? Thanks :) --Quiddity19:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would type a personal message to the user in question, or use the spam templates if the linking is clearly inappropriate, but some people might find such a template useful? -- lucasbfrtalk07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template signature error
Whenever I use any of {{uw-block1}} , {{uw-block2}} or {{uw-block3}} it messes up my signature. It clips everything but the "Email" link. Have a look in my sandbox to see what I mean. What I do is sign after the template, but it is a bit of a problem. Does this happen for anyone else, if not does anyone know what in my sig triggers it so that I can change it? The code for my sig is:
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">[[User:James086|]]</font><sup>[[User talk:James086|<font color="#006400">Talk</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/James086|<font color="#700000">Email</font>]]</sup>
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">[[User:James086|]]</font>
<sup>[[User talk:James086|<font color="#006400">Talk</font>]]|
[[Special:Emailuser/James086|<font color="#700000">Email</font>]]</sup>
It causes an "ifelse" statement to become screwed up. Replacing the "|" with either "|" or "{{!}}" will fix the problem. GracenotesT § 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new warning template {{uselanguage}} to tag user talk pages. It has one parameter that is the language code. It will ideally give a warning in the language of the user, but will work with all language codes pointing to the correct WP. It is similar to the family of the contrib-xx1 templates, but can easily be expanded. Andreas (T)00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it is substituted, however, it will result in a mess of superfluous code, although appear fine. I suggest that we clean it up by requiring substitution, or else give an error message. GracenotesT § 04:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it doesn't already exist in some form, I am going to create this new user message template, {{Articlesig}}, in about a week if there are no objections. (The design happens to be lifted from {{noprotection}}.)
Proper signature use
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a common mistake for beginners, and it has since (most likely) been corrected. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should only (and always) use your signature after contributing to talkpages, the Village Pump, or other discussion pages. (For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these, see What is an article?) Thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience!
That's cool. I've been using test1 and adding a sentence after, which is a bit akward and doesn't link to all the appropriate pages (too much typing). This is just a one-shot, yes? Natalie14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after someone's gotten this warning and continues doing it, that would make sense. In answer to your question: Yes, it is certainly one-shot (at first I thought maybe you meant that I only intended to use it once, which wouldn't make sense). However, something like this should still be used for this specific issue the first time it is recognized, but if they continue to disregard this rule, a new level has obviously been reached. Lenoxus" * "01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about a user who never signs their posts and refuses to? I got into this with User:Wrestlinglover420. He never signs his posts on talk pages and basically told me he's not gonna if he doesn't want to. TJ Spyke00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To return to {{Articlesig}}: It is really needed! Has something happened to the proposal, or is there somewhere else you need support so you can create it? Is someone fighting over the words to use? Greswik21:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! I'd just let it slip my mind... so here goes! Link: {{Articlesig}}. Oh, and in answer to TJ Spyke: that template is {{Tilde}}, and at least one bot, HagermanBot, thankfully does this when it can (not that it's perfect, of course, so go ahead if the template is needed). In fact, seeing such a message on another user's talkpage was what reminded me of this! Lenoxus" * "21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! But, what is that {{PAGENAME}} - thing? I had to fix it after using it. Was that just me, could you make a simple example? Greswik15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<unindent>Just going through the backlog. Good idea & good template. I've given it the uw touch, and have now moved it over to {{uw-articlesig}} with a redirect in place. Will now post it up for use. Cheers Khukri14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the warnings threaten things, or mention admin-only tools. A lot of them are boilerplate reminders of various policies, like copyright infringement, signing posts, and using edit summaries. In that respect, templates save the work of thinking of and typing out a whole message yourself, and include links to relevant pages. With the warning series' that escalate to a final warning, most admins like to see that a user has received a level 3 or 4 warning (from any other user) before blocking, because it ensures that the person is aware of the rules and consequences. Natalie15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<includeonly>subst:</includeonly> instead of subst=subst:?
Currently, most user warnings in this project make use of {{{subst|}}} with an optional |subst=subst:}} parameter that simplifies the output of the template when placed on a user talk page. However, this extra parameter is often excluded, and when used, requires some extra typing and doesn't work without an article parameter due to a bug. Perhaps we could use the much easier <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> trick to simplify the output? The includeonly trick uses no additional parameters, is used automatically every time, and also avoids the bug, allowing it to be used even without an article parameter. I think we should switch all the user warnings under this project to use this format, but I'd like to see if people support this first, since it would affect so many templates. PyrospiritFlamesFire02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd love to implement this, there is no way that everyone is going to subst user messages (I know, believe me), and if someone doesn't subst a message in the above format, then it will result is a sticky mess of code that will undoubtedly confuse an vandal, or cause said vandal to laugh at Wikipedia's unintentional bad coding, etc. GracenotesT § 14:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so it won't work if you don't subst, then? In that case, it would remind them to subst the message when they see the messed up code, so it'll serve two purposes! PyrospiritFlamesFire02:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would mean that people check the output of the template after putting it. And that's probably not going to happen this century :D That kind of warning is useful on db-reason and afd, because a badly formed speedy deletion or AfD is enough to have the request bumped, but on a user warning, it will just confuse the user receiving the warning even more. -- lucasbfrtalk06:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argument for welcome and anon
I have gotten into the habit of adding a parameter for welcome and anon (even though it is ignored) so that I can tell what article caught my eye. Perhaps the argument (if present) could be included in the message. For example, "Thank you for your contributions, such as your edit to {{1}}".
OK, I'll bite. I think its a fine idea. If the parameter is optional then there's no harm to those who choose not to use it. So, go for it.--Kubigula(talk)02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:uw-spam1 contains the following erroneous statement: Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. This sentence always bothered me because it's factually incorrect or misleading:
The presence of "nofollow" tags in the article's HTML header is irrelevant. Even without nofollow tags, most spiders are smart enough to avoid following links that lead away from the site being crawled. The point of nofollow tags is more to prevent spiders from indexing specific pages stored on the same web site that it's crawling.
It may not matter that external links "do not alter search engine rankings" because an external link in a Wikipedia article will drive more traffic to that external link! Wikipedia articles come up near the top of many searches, and people who read such an article will see the external links, and some fraction of those will click on those links.
Not exactly, Google and most search engines rank websites according to their popularity. Wikipedia being very popular, an outgoing link from there affected search results. The nofollow tag allows us to say that the link should be ignored. For the second statement, that's why we fight spam on WP ;). -- lucasbfrtalk10:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to the creation of uw-blp1 - uw-blp4 as redirects to the uw-biog series? At least for me, BLP (as the policy abbrev) is much easier to remember. Mr.Z-mantalk¢03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any advice on whether I should leave it in my userspace, or move it to a proper template so others can find and use it more easily? As at the moment you have to type in {{Subst:User:Asics/Reported|sig=~~~~}} in order to get it to work. Is there another one already made? (Knowing my luck there will be, and I will have wasted 10 minutes making it!) Thanks in advance for any advice, Asics talk Editor review!17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fwarn is great, I wish it was "uw-certified." It's documentation needs help though. Not much, just a little. Okay, I'll do it. --Yksin22:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you call it by that name? I didn't mean that as a name, I meant that as the template wasn't "approved" with the new template system. It's an old template. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely repeating your usage. In any case, whether "approved" within the new template system or not, Template:Non-admin fwarn is a very useful template, if used appropriately. I've put together a bit of documentation to help in that direction, that (as a fairly recent vandalism-fighter) I had to learn by trial & error. -- Yksin23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this template used occasionally when on bouts of vandalfighting and I must say that I am not entirely convinced by its usefulness. After all, it basically tells them that they are about to be blocked and there is nothing they can do about it. The Fwarn template states on it You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. However, if someone has submitted them correctly to WP:AIV and they have vandalised after a final warning, no matter how "careful and serious" they are, they are going to be blocked. In my humble opinion, all this template might do is, in some cases, encourage a last scurry of vandalism in the knowledge they are going to be imminently blocked anyway. I invite people to disagree with me and persuade me that this template is useful, but from my experience of witnessing its use I don't entirely feel that way. Will (aka Wimt) 02:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest reason I find it useful is because it indicates to the user that s/he has actually been reported. I frequently come across talk pages that have a large collection of "this is your final warning, next time you will be blocked" all in a row, with no indication that they've ever been reported. If I was engaged in vandalism, I'd just think, "they always say they're gonna do something to me but they never do." [[Template:Non-admin fwarn] lets them know: yes, something has been done. Almost as important, it lets other editors dealing with the same user's vandalism know that a report has been made -- especially if it's the same day with a particularly active vandal -- and adds to the general record of how serious a particular user's vandalism has been. Note that sometimes admins at WP:AIV do not block a reported user -- usually because of time passage since the last prior vandalism -- so I've added to the documentation to hopefully better align its usage with WP:AIV practice. I agree perhaps the language in the template itself could be improved. --Yksin16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna agree with Will in saying that I'm not entirely convinced of its usefulness. Someone who is an obvious vandal will get blocked without needing yet another message on their talk page. As for seeing whether they've been reported or not... I also fail to see the use in that. You can see from their block log (viewable by anyone) whether they've been blocked or not, and whether they've been reported doesn't have much bearing on anything (in my opinion, though I'm a lot more heavy-handed towards vandals than some other people are). If they're a vandal IP, block and move on. If they're a vandal account and they've been warned before, indefinitely block them and move on (regardless of time spent between warnings). EVula// talk // ☯ //17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in summary: you & I see the issues differently, & therefore choose differently. I can live with that. --Yksin17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been seeing this {{fwarn}} template on user pages before I block them, and I'm thinking maybe we should delete it. A lot of people who make WP:AIV reports do so improperly, and we remove the reports instead of blocking. If someone receives one of these messages and then doesn't get blocked, that's worse than just getting {{uw-v4im}} and not getting blocked. And this inevitably happens, we don't block on all reports but getting this warning and then no block definitely sends the wrong message: "go ahead and vandalize with impunity, nobody cares". — coelacan — 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would dislike deleting a template that people find useful, but I have to agree with the above point. Once someone has been reported to AIV, there are only two outcomes - either they get blocked, in which case there's not much point in telling them to reconsider their behavior (and the same message should presumably come from the blocking admin anyway), or they don't get blocked, in which case they either assume the reviewing admin thinks their vandalism was that bad or they learn to guage how much they can get away with without being blocked.--Kubigula(talk)02:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rough consensus above appears to support deletion, so I think consideration by a wider audience at TfD is probably appropriate.--Kubigula(talk)03:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxide makes a good point in the TFD; 3RR reports are sometimes validly contested. A template that lets a person know they've been reported for 3RR can be a good idea, if it points to WP:AN3. Without regard for keeping these generic fwarn templates, would a separate {{uw-3rr-reported}} template be a good idea? — coelacan — 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, the years tend to be common targets for anons who want to add themselves to Wikipedia. While I could use {{uw-test}}, {{uw-vandalism}} or {{uw-joke}}, I feel that these may be a little too generic. Are there any suggestions? --Sigma 702:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall a uw template (albeit before the uw standardization) regarding adding personal commentary & original research? Something different from NPOV and cite tags... Am I overlooking it? /Blaxthos06:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Birthdays
I was wondering whether there is an appropriate warning out there for telling people not to add their own birthdays to date articles. When looking over recent changes, I have noticed that this occurs very regularly. I had been giving them {{uw-test1}} but I feel it doesn't really convey what they are doing and why it is being reverted. I have attempted to make my own template for this purpose at User:Wimt/nn-birthday but I wondered whether any similar templates already existed and, if not, whether anyone else agrees with me that it would be a useful message to give out. Will (aka Wimt) 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seem a little specific. I would suggest using the uw-test templates with the third parameter, which allows you to add specific information. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using test1 for this. If someone does make a specific warning, I would suggest broadening it to adding any nonnotable thing to a date article. People add BS events, deaths, and other crap pretty regularly, as well as adding Jesus to the list of births on December 25. Natalie02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's very true it could easily be broadened to any non-notable date addition. I do take your point TeckWiz that it is quite specific and I could use the third parameter of the test templates, but given how often I have been reverting this recently, I personally think that it may justify its own template. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it's a little too specific. Feel free to use yours though. It looks good. You may also want to move it to the template namespace, but I wouldn't classify it as uw- warning. What about Template:Datewarning ? --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah I have no great wish to make it a uw- warning. Template:Datewarning sounds a good idea to me. I'll move it there when I've reworded it a bit to make it suitable for any date addition. Thanks for your help. Will (aka Wimt) 09:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When to use "blatant vandal" warning (uw-bv)?
I can't figure out how the "blatant vandal" warning is supposed to be used. Based on the "assume good faith" policy, you're not supposed to accuse someone of vandalism unless it's, well, blatant. So, when should the templates uw-vandalism1, 2, etc. be used, and when should uw-bv be used? CalebNoble05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use bv when it's not quite so extreme as to justify an immediate "This is your only warning", but still extreme enough that first and second-level warnings aren't enough. Essentially, I think of it as an immediate third-level warning (remember, level 3 likewise assumes bad faith) that gives a bit more context than just starting immediately with "Please stop". Heimstern Läufer21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree - although I don't really use uw-bv myself, I tend to consider it to be at the same level as uw-vandalism3 when giving further warnings. It is generally used as the first warning given to someone in cases of rather serious and/or fast vandalism. Uw-vandalism4im on the other hand I tend to use on editors who have got a last warning within the previous 24 hours or so to let them know they are still on their absolute last warning. It can also be used as a first and only warning in cases of extremely serious vandalism. Will (aka Wimt) 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've assumed that a garden variety vandal makes an article worse, but it's not completely clear they know the effect of what they're doing. A blatant vandal is one who knows they're making it worse. The former adds cutesy sayings, uncited libelous facts, or changes numbers to plausible values, etc. The latter inserts profanity, character assassinations, non-plausible numbers, etc. —EncMstr22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] The complexity of the vandalism should be taken into account as well. Someone who adds a picture of a penis to a Pokémon page or is modifying templates, for example, is of a totally different type than someone just adding "omg hi" to the day's FA. EVula// talk // ☯ //22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Att no longer policy
I don't know templates currently cite ATT instead of Verifiability, but they need to be changed back to Verifiability as ATT is not currently policy, but proposed policy. Miss Mondegreen | Talk08:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed a set last night--I think the big thing is all of the non talk page templates which haven't all been changed back. I'm working on requesting those now. But I have no idea about the rest of these. I did the citing sources set last night but the others? Miss Mondegreen | Talk03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chat1 is currently geared to the situation where someone posts off-topic or inappropriate comments to an article talk page. Talkinarticle is designed for warning those who put talk comments in the actual article space. We could tweak Chat1 to cover the talk in article situation, but (although I generally think we are starting to get too many UWs) I think this is worth a specific one-off warning. I see this situation come up a fair bit, and Artic.gnome's question is at least the third time someone has asked about this template.--Kubigula(talk)14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this template existence (even if personally I wouldn't use it, vandalism is vandalism. But we have {{uw-racism}}, so...), but this template is a copy paste of {{uw-v3}}. It could be replaced by
{{subst:Uw-vandalism3|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1|}}}}}|2=Also note that using [[LGBT]] terms to vandalize promotes hatred and is offensive to many people. Please stop promoting intolerance. }}
(edit conflict - I have pretty much the same reaction as Lucas) I know there are folks who do LGBT RC patrol, and I personally don't begrudge them a specific warning template. However, I don't think we should add this to the main UTM page. We already have {{uw-racism}} and I think you could make an argument for a specific template for every way in which a comment can be offensive - race, sexual preference, religion, national origin etc. Personally, I think the vandalism warnings are adequate for addressing these situations. However, if people want something more specific, I suggest we create one warning, perhaps {{uw-offensive}}, that warns people not to make offensive comments regarding race, sexual preference or religion.--Kubigula(talk)14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that icon is that it isn't protected and it is on Commons. That means that if someone on commons replaces the icon with something else everything here would also be affected. The other thing I don't like which is more minor but still an annoyance is that the icon doesn't seem to match the nuvola or modern look now being used in the uw-template series. -- Hdt83Chat23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick change back on one part which was putting the image size back to 40px, not to be a pain in the arse and will happily put them back in a bit if needs be. If these warnings are used on a wide screen, due to the coding the image will infact overlap the table. Also the most serious is block3 the permanent block, which has a smaller icon overall. If you look here they are all at the same size (overall not just the X). I tried to put block3 at the same size but runs into this overlap problem. Is the bigger image size important, this is the biggest image we have in the uw series, I'm certainly for the icons but is there a point when they are bigger than the message you are trying to convey? Just my thoughts and I will change back if you lot think so. Ta Khukri07:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing V1 and V2
I have to say that I'm not quite happy with {{uw-v1}} (and it's partly my own fault). The template tries to address situations where someone has vandalized repeatedly or just once, and the resulting language doesn't flow very well. I mean the "one or more of your edits, such as the one you made to..." part. My thought is to steal the language from V2 and change V1 to the following (options included):
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute to our encyclopedia, but please do not make unhelpful and unconstructive edits, as you did to Article. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia and feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Thank you.
Of course, this means that V2 would also need to be changed so that the two warnings are not redundantly similar. My proposed language for V2 is as follows:
Adding unhelpful and non-constructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Article, is considered vandalism and is reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
This would be a pretty big change, so I ask for comments, objections or suggestions. For all I know, it could just be me that doesn't particularly like the current V1.--Kubigula(talk)02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As level 1 warnings assume good faith, we should emphasize "considered unhelpful and unconstructive" in V1. If we are assuming good faith, we must assume they had good intentions but are unaware of policy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. How about, "..., but please do not make edits that are considered unhelpful or unconstructive, as you did to Article."? --Kubigula(talk)03:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does one propose a new template?
Per discussion here, there seems to be a mismatch between the tone of the {{Uw-longterm}} tag and the purpose WP:WARN holds it out for (viz., reprimanding a user for a "Long term pattern of abuse"). A user had racked up a clear record of abusing the minor edit tag, but this abuse didn't amount to vandalism. Because we have a tag for such a "Long term pattern of abuse" I used this, and received complaints that this was needlessly inflammatory, because the template's language seems aimed at vandals, not serial abusers. In my view, "long term pattern of abuse" and "long term pattern of vandalism" are plainly distinct, and merit different templates. I propose there should either be separate tags for a long-term pattern of abuse (which is what we have here) and a long-term pattern of vandalism, or in the alternative, the language of the {{Uw-longterm}} template should be changed to be more appropriate to the behavior WP:WARN holds it out as a sanction for.Simon Dodd15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem is in the semantics of the word "abuse". It doesn't mean what you think it means. This template is fine for the purpose it's meant for, warning users who behave abusively. The guy you were using it on wasn't "abusing" anything. He was maybe misusing it (arguably, in some instances, not even in most). "Abusive" behaviour is harmful behaviour that is committed in a reckless or intentional way. Fut.Perf.☼20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding Fut.Perf's comment, given discussion at WP:AN, I have made changes to WP:WARN and surrounding materials to fix the problems that led to this situation. To begin with, because abuse and vandalism are clearly separate concepts and because {{Uw-longterm}} clearly addresses the latter, I have relabeled it here at WP:WARN to reflect its actual purpose. I have also created a new template, {{Uw-longtermabuse}}, to fill the gap left by relabelling {{Uw-longterm}}. Lastly, I have proposed a new policy, Wikipedia:Abuse that I hope will be used to arrive at a community consensus of what "abuse" means as WP:WARN and other policies comprehend that term.Simon Dodd13:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in further demonstration of Fut.Perf's bad faith in so doing, he made no note of that here or on my talk page. A true class act.Simon Dodd15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising warnings
A new section of WP:BLOCK, added in this edit, permits blocks afterr warnings of accouts that "exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service". It seems to me that a proper set of warning tempaltes should be crezted for this, and included in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Does anyone object or have any suggestions? DES(talk)15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh..{{uw-advert1}} and the rest of the series exist.. Never mind. Yes, they should be created. Also, since it's no in the blocking policy, we should make uw-adblock (ablock already exists). --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This word is misused here. It is very difficult to actually abuse a person over the internet. See here
Instead of "long-term pattern of abuse", which might be offensive to people who have suffered actual abuse, we should say "long-term pattern of severe disruption", or some other different wording.
I can certainly agree with that, although it looks like it's going to be a moot point - someone's nominated the template for deletion.Simon Dodd19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption would be better wording if such a template were actually helpful. However, Armedblowfish, despite sharing your concern for the victims of abuse, reading a dictionary entry for "abuse" suggests that your restriction of the use of a word which has long had a wide range of meanings to the social context of the extremely serious things you refer to is itself an abuse of the English language. The things you describe are terrible, but that does not mean they should take over a perfectly good English word. JPD (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reverted. I don't believe that there is any consensus to return to the older icons at the moment. By all means start a discussion but don't just make changes based upon your personal preference. Will (aka Wimt) 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why the uw-vandalism templates are formatted as HTML tables? The formatting causes the signature to move down a line or two, which makes things rather awkward. For example:
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Article, you may be blocked from editing. Hersfold(talk/work)02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It looks as though the template has been fixed anyway, and that discussion makes it sound as though I wasn't the only one having this problem. Thanks. Hersfold(talk/work)02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry everyone, for some reason this page was knocked off my watch list, so I haven't kept an eye on any template questions or problems from here recently. Anyway it's back on my watch list so any grumbles, moans about why X, or Y isn't working I'll be able to deftly ignore them ;) Khukri07:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the Uw-4 templates, I think we should change last warning to final warning, and use this image: , instead of this one: . - Super4818:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the one that says "Stop" is good. Also, if someone's vandalising in another language, they'll recognize a hand, not an English word. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 18:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with the stop sign, I think, is that it's American. Do they have ones that look like that in Britain? GracenotesT § 15:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do have stop signs that look like that in the UK actually, although they aren't as widely used as the give way sign. Nevertheless, I still prefer the hand myself as I think it looks nicer. Will (aka Wimt) 15:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have them in France, but that's a side issue. The hand template, be it in spangly nuvola or plain, has become a sort of norm throughout Wikipedia, not just amongst warning templates but in all sorts of places. I think tradition has to pay a part in any decision to change, and I'm not up for change for changes sake, and would need a more concrete rationale at the moment. Cheers Khukri09:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Escalation of uw-error and uw-test series (and others)
The uw-error and uw-test series should escalate to uw-vandalism4, but the template documentation links to uw-4 instead. This redirects to the correct template, but still I think it lacks in clarity.
Looking at the code, it is supposed to do so (and I think it did at some point). There must be a glitch somewhere... -- lucasbfrtalk14:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into a bit more, anyway. And do we want "uw-vandalism" or "uw-v" as the default escalation series? Hm... it seems like lucas took basically the same approach that I did. GracenotesT § 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you've lost me? Not about saving space, when we started it was about when you get to level 4 with these types of warnings, it was about stating that these type of edits in the are end considered vandalism pure n simple. Khukri07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Gracenotes meant to ask was whether we should link to Template:uw-v4 or Template:uw-vandalism4 (or others in the uw-vandalism series); the former is a shortcut for the latter. I first thought uw-v was OK, but since space is not an issue really, and for clarity, shall we link to uw-vandalism? Oliphaunt09:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ha, yea I agree I think linking to the actual template is preferable than linking to the redirect. Sorry didn't understand. Cheers Khukri09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Uw-bite
I'm not sure if this template would work with the project. It's telling people not to bite newcomers. That presumably means it's being giving to experienced users. Experienced users shouldn't be templated. So this template probably shouldn't exist. It's short enough to be typed anyway. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested speedy deletion for that template, despite the fact that DTTR is only an essay and not a policy/guidline. Also, I have seen shorter single use templates (uw-editsummary is one). Funpika01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are plenty of intermediate users who are somewhere between rookie newcomers and experienced and established editors, who have not yet read all the policies, such as not biting the newcomers or whatever, but have still posted plenty of wiki-edits. Then there are the vast numbers of anonymous unregistered IP users, which might be shared at a school or library, and who have a much higher probability of going astray from the rules. Discretion should always be used in applying official warning templates, which are simply meant to make a slightly more visual, official-looking impact. Experienced editors should be counselled on the basis of reasoning, with friendly helpful links to the rule(s) in question, and sans-template; while newbies and anonymous shared IP editors may actually respond a bit more appropriately to an official-looking template warning. A simple friendly note from some other wiki-editor may not seem very "official" to a newcomer, and therefore might be judged as not particularly valid. A rule of thumb might be: if the offending editor knows what a warning template is and how to make one, then he/she should not be warned with a template. Many of our newcomers are highly experienced in posting on forums, myspace, facebook, and blog pages; which are not always noted for civility. Sometimes takes a little while for them to adapt to the unfamiliar territory of wiki-civility and consensus, and it may take some time and counselling to get them to come around. "Our job" is to help them. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to agree with T-dot - just because the template is there doesn't mean it's going to be used on regulars. The template could be issued to a relative newbie, an IP user that does come fairly frequently but hasn't made an account, or possibly a regular who has been treating newcomers particularly nastily lately. Just because they're a regular does not mean that they're perfect - that's why WP:DTTR is an essay and not a guideline. If someone is willing to go to WP:UTM and find the template they should use to warn a member not to bite newbies, then they probably can be trusted to know when is a good time to use a template. You're welcome to put it up for deletion, of course, but I really don't think there's any reason to delete the template, unless it's clear that it is being abused. Hersfold(talk/work)01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You recreated it? Interesting. I was about to do so after reading the comment and I noticed it was there. :P Funpika20:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I will agree in principle that WP:DTTR applies, I feel that each situation should be determined on its own merits. As an example, when I see an editor revert vandalism/tests/etc. without issuing a warning, I almost always leave the reverter a {{Uw-warn}} and issue the appropriate warning to the revertee myself. Too often I have seen a vandal get away with a dozen extra edits before being blocked because people were too lazy to issue warnings when they reverted. However, as always, YMMV. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion before inclusion
Should it be mandatory to suggest a template on this talk page before making it/adding it to the list? We don't templates whose syntax is messed up, or ones that don't serve a good purpose. I don't mean making it bureaucratic with an approval group or anything, just having 1 or 2 users' imput on the suggestion before making it. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more with you. I also don't want it to turn into a bureaucracy but I've lost track of the amount of times I've had to ask editors (nicely) not to do partial edits to some of the system. There's enough people now with this page in their watchlist that even if someone has to wait 24 hours, it's better than putting new templates straight into circulation. I see this morning that User:AAA! has put all of the redirect templates up for db, and has created a single issue. I'm not entirely sure about this and am going to put a hangon on all the templates will discuss below. Khukri07:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect templates
As I said above User:AAA! has put all of the uw-redirect series up for speedy and has created {{uw-redirect}}. Overall I'm not worried except the new template doesn't have any leeway for AGF, and the first two levels of the existing system can be used for people who put redirects into place but might not be pure out n out vandalism but could just be a balls up. Anyone think otherwise or is a single suffice? Khukri07:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created the above template. Improvements to it from those with more experience of managing user warning templates are most welcome. Additional templates for more severe warnings would be even better. Thanks. — Hex(❝?!❞)01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could certainly be incorporated into the uw-chat series, but as one off templates go the idea is sound. I would maybe suggest moving it to {{uw-notsocial}}, as per all uw warnings, change the icon over to the standard info. Then change the first argument to become the name of the offending article or talk page, and at the thank you add the following;
{{pp-semi-template|small=yes}} -We'll get it protected afterwards
{{Singlenotice}}</noinclude>
It's up to everyone else, look to see though if it can be incorporated into chat, and that will give you your incremental part you wish. Cheers Khukri09:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a great idea, and have recently had several situations where I could have used the template myself. Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but it looks like your template doesn't point to the first link you list above. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)(Talk)21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both links reflect the same underlying policy. I could only work in the one, if you or someone else has a good way to include both feel free to edit it. Anomie23:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My personal suggestion is to make it a tad less grave. Linking to copyrighted material is not as bad as inserting it. Don't want to make a WP:ADIEU situation either... GracenotesT § 05:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the one line I copied from uw-copyright instead of Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking, but I can't seem to find a way to reword it to be less grave without sounding too lenient. Do you have any suggestions? Or maybe it should be a series, to cover both good-faith edits and persistent violators? Anomie14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've created series versions so good faith can be assumed (or not assumed) as necessary: 1, 2, 3. Are these preferable to the one-size-fits-all version? Anomie22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a small change in the wikilinking (feel free to revert if you don't like it). Otherwise, I would say it's good to go. Nice job.--Kubigula(talk)21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to Wikipedia space as a template. The shortest useful name would be best; I'm thinking either {{uw-copylink}} or {{Template:Uw-copyright-link}}. It should then be added to the WP:UTM page, probably under the existing copyright warning, using the same formatting as the others. Then, I think it should also be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview. I believe that's it - I invite others to jump in if I am missing something. Let me know if you need help with these.--Kubigula(talk)04:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed WP:UTM itself ;) don't worry it's done. On that note I've spent a little while making sure that temaplates are listed in all the correct places. I think I'll add a section to the FAQ this evening about where templates should go. Khukri14:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked around but I was wondering if there is a template to put on the talk page of users who try to contact celebrities through their respective Wikipages (e.g. "I love you so much *****! Email me at ***")? In the interim should I use social networking or chatting tags? If one doesn't exist, this may be a useful template to make. - AKeen15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Templated messages are used for the more common types of issues, and are not a substitute for a good ol personal message and I think something like this would warrant the personal touch. I wouldn't necessarily think about creating a template for cyberstalking. Khukri15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have created, and added to the page, two new templates.
{{Speedy-Warn}} is used to notify/warn soemone that a speedy delete tag that s/he has placed has been considered inappropriate and has been removed.
{{SD warn-needed}} is used to remind editors that when placing a speedy delete tag it is a good idea to notify the creator of the artticle involved that it has been tagged.
Both probably need to be harmonized with the WP:UW look and feel and naming convention. As a side note, we might want to organize the single templates an other way, the table is growing a lot. -- lucasbfrtalk15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lucas but would you mind if I remved them until they get the UW treatment? you might want to also look here here we've got ideas to standardise all the sp templates as well as some other areas. I'll wait a little while, but I'll most probably take them down this evening till they become standardised. Cheers Khukri16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are not quite "user-warning" templates, there are others listed that are not either, mostly in the "Other" section. I'm not sure these really should use the UW look or naming convention, although they can if you wish. Perhaps they should be moved down into the "Other" section perhaps in "deletion notifiactions"? But I am not claiming to WP:OWN these, so if you want to re-arrange them to have the uw-look and name, you surely may. DES(talk)16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the "-n"
Most of these templates used to have a "-n" appended, which made it easy to see which article the user was warned for. Any chance of getting a list of these or adding this to every current "UW" template? --Liface15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't needed anymore, every template does this by default. If you look at the bottom of any template it tells you how to use the templates i.e. {{uw-v1}}. Cheers Khukri15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for specific warning template
Is there a warning for users who use warnings maliciously? I warned a user who had made some *ahem* non-constructive edits, and he replied to me with a blatant vandal template. --LuigiManiac14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but you should probably remove the warning, and either re warn him for vandalism or type a personalized message :) -- lucasbfrtalk14:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible contradiction between this template and the policy page
I think there's a contradiction between this template, which implies that you're entitled to three reverts per day, and the policy page, which states that it's not an entitlement. I've drawn attention to it here. ElinorD17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the template to correct the wording. Note that this doesn't leave much of the template left over. It might probably be wise to just block everyone who uses this template. (The previous version could get people blocked on the novel theory of misrepresenting guidelines. This in addition to what would happen if you apply this version: You could be blocked for ruleslawyering, gaming the rules, and being a WP:DICK in general, not to mention you might draw attention to any edit warring you've been doing yourself. Finally, you could get reprimanded as per WP:KETTLE.) —Kim Bruning21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the "Please read 3RR", which can be read as being a little confrontational, and suggested the talk page to work out troubles. It's quite a big change for a small template, so please check I've done it all right. --h2g2bob22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template is currently inferior to {{3RR}} in my opinion, because it just seems to be a generic "don't edit-war" template and doesn't actually explain what the 3RR policy is or even mention it. One use of user warnings is to inform users of policy, and this template fails in that regard at the moment. I see that the link has been removed in the past, though, so I'm posting this here to request more thought about the matter. --ais523 12:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy having this template classed as a "user warning" template. I created it as a way to give feedback to users who made unsuccessful reports to AIV in good faith without knowing for technical reasons that they would not be actionable. It was there as a partner to {{AIV-thanks}} (which I haven't created yet!) to feedback successful AIV reports.
I think its good to bring it into line with the user template rationalisation programme but I don't think it really sits well alongside templates like {{uw-v1}}. Could it be reclassified somehow? AndrewRT(Talk) 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. The "uw-" prefix applies to user messages in general, although I can see why you're hung up about it. This template is not a warning template, nor was it ever consciously classified as such. It's actually a notice. Believe me, {{uw-thankyou}} is in no way a warning, but under harmonization and such, it was created to begin with "uw-". I hope that this isn't rather inconvenient. GracenotesT § 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-autobiography
Shouldn't this template raise the possibility of speedy deletion? Right now it looks like it can only be used for autobiographical articles that might be sent to WP:AFD. --Metropolitan9016:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you allow this template to reference specific articles? I checked the source, and there doesn't seem to be any inidcation that this is the case. --Sigma 719:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried the template {{subst:uw-autobiography|Article}}, pasting in the name of the article, and when the template was substituted on the user's talk page, the name of the article didn't appear. I don't grok templates well enough to fix this.--Kathy A.22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-c&pmove
The documentation for this template doesn't specify the {{{to}}} parameter, which is unique to this template and not used for (most?) other user warning templates. --Russ(talk)14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-delete1
Only for newer users?
A lot of the text on this template would only be appropriate for newer users. If this was given to established editors that made an honest mistake, it would be insulting to tell them to read the welcome page and use the sandbox for test edits. Just my 2 cents. :: ZJH(TCE)12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why all of the level 1 templates have been written as AGF warnings, and to inform editors that the edit they have just done is wrong. For an established editor who should know better than remove large tracts of text without providing an edit summary one would normally start with a level 2 warning. The language of level 2 is usually faith neutral tending towards reproach so that if a mistake has been made we are still not throwing around blatant accusations. cheers Khukri12:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Passive voice is OK, but....
Don't get me wrong, I *like* the passive voice. When used correctly, it's a wonderful thing. However, the current Uw-delete1 template says (in part):
Please ... do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary.
That last clause can be read two ways:
You should provide the edit summary. Or,
The edit summary field should be filled in automatically by the server; you should see text there when you edit.
Inexperienced users won't know which way to interpret it.
May I recommend instead:
Please ... do not remove content from Wikipedia without typing a good reason in the edit summary field.
No probs at all. You could do the same aim by a smaller change .....Wikipedia without a good reason, whichyou should specify.... But it's splitting hairs, on you go. Khukri07:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is very offensive
I am a victim of this template. It is very offensive to get a standardised warning from a thoughtless editor who did not take the trouble to review whether the edit was good or bad for Wikipedia, or to read the associated talk page. I am thinking of quitting as a result of this brutal treatment. I do not think you should allow editors to use templates like this as a shortcut way of making unfair allegations. Varsdra19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you removed content from an article accidentally, the template should not offend you. If you removed it intentionally, then either you should have stated a reason, or been warned with a stronger content blanking/vandalism template. It takes a bit of a thick skin to edit here, since your edits will always be under the scrutiny of others. As far as "brutal treatment", c'mon. If you consider a vanilla warning like this one brutal, I fear for you. -- Elaich17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this is a level 1 block, is it wise to link to BJAODN in this template? I'm seeing a WP:BEANS situation here by implicitly encouraging editors to just make joke edits elsewhere. BJAODN can be entertaining, but it's more of a comic relief for seasoned editors rather than a place we direct newbies to. Tijuana Brass06:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It seems to say, "Please don't joke on our encyclopaedia, we don't like it. But hey! Here's where we'll glamorise all the jokes you and others may insert!" -- LukeSurl15:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and made the change. I thought it was more appropriate to link to the Wikipedia page than to the external link, as using an external link might be taken as a disingenuous attempt to kick someone out of Wikipedia.--Kubigula(talk)04:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked and it mentioned Uncyc, not BJAODN. If it is not going to continue to point to Uncyc, I suggest that it shouldn't point to anything there, for reasons already covered above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea; link to the topic here rather than to the other site. While I think it would result in a small spike of joke-vandalism at the Uncyclopedia article, I'm sure it has plenty of watchers since it's is already and obvious target anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the Uncyclopedia part. It's not worth adding, especially since they won't tolerate silly/nonsense edits (I'm a member there, and most joke edits aren't really that funny). All we want is for them to stop making joke edits, and the sandbox seems adequate. I've removed it, and will leave it like it is. I don't think we need a "You might also want to check out..." sentence anyway. --AAA!(AAAA)07:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the hope was that if they like humor, they could turn out to be legitimate editors at Uncyclopedia. However, I see your point that the result could be that we just end up funneling WP vandals to Uncyclopedia. So, I have no objection to deleting the reference.--Kubigula(talk)13:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-own1
When to use this template
Only use this template if the user who is violating WP:OWN is new to Wikipedia. Usually these type of violations are from expierienced users. If the user is expierienced, use Uw-own2 or Uw-own3 (depending on how severe or hostile the problem is) and try to resolve the problem on the article's talk page. If the editor persists and behaves disruptively (e.g. revert war, personal attacks, uncivility, etc.), use other templates. Squirepants10116:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the use of templates on experienced users is regarded by many as uncivil and that a better way of dealing with the issue would be to type a polite message on the user's talkpage rather than hit them with a template. The user is undoubtedly already aware of WP:OWN... WJBscribe17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
teehee. But seriously. I'm getting a little tired of rude responses on my talk page when I use this one on someone else's. It's normally something to the effect of "It's too much trouble." Gimme a break. How hard is it to type subst: before the name of the template you've picked?! MKoltnow05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone finds it too much trouble to type 6 characters then I would question the fact that they are issuing templates in the first place. If they don't understand why templates should be subst'd for the good of Wikipedia, then there's a fair chance they don't understand the template they are issuing. Yes editors forget and I wouldn't ever issue this template unless it was for continued non subst'ing, but an editor who says he can't be bothered doesn't entirely have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Khukri09:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I try to add a friendly personal note such as "Keep up the good work vandal fighting" or somesuch, and direct them to WP:TT since a huge number of people don't use the new uw-style templates either, but it doesn't seem to matter what I say, I get no reaction or a hostile reaction more often than should be expected. MKoltnow14:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no matter how much good faith is put into the templates, some editors will always take it personally. And with the fact that there are no repercussions for not subst'ing can makes it a very difficult area to police as you well know. All I can say is when you get a 'narky' one send another message saying you did what you did for the good of wikipedia, explain in layman's terms the effect it has on the servers blah blah blah, and if they're still tetchy after that well at least you can say you tried and meant it with the best intentions. I dunno how you add your extra text or if you know, but there is a second parser built in to this and almost all of the uw- series of warning that allows you to modify the Thank you i.e.
{{subst:uw-subt|Article|This message is just to give you a gentle reminder, please do not take it personally and keep up the good work.}}
{{subst:uw-test1|subst=subst:}} seems to be broken at the moment (try it in the sandbox): the first sentence ends up reading 'Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page [[:the page [[:{{{1}}}]] on]] on Wikipedia.'. I think that this is a problem with optional subst, rather than with the template itself, though. --ais523 09:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Template needs an edit
Because this template is so heavily used, I wanted to discuss this one rather that just doing it. I think this template should end with ...sandbox instead of articles or other pages, even if your ultimate intention is to undo your test edits."
Rationale: Some editors (mistakenly in my view) believe that any time a test edit is self-reverted then uw-test2 should be used (because it mentions self-reversion) even if the experimenter has no level-1 warnings. I think this is misguided, as self-reverting a test is a lesser "sin" that testing and not self-reverting. The misguidance is coming from the lack of self-reversion being mentioned here at uw-test1. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the talk page has a hat full of warnings, then just go straight in with something like;
{{subst:uw-v3|Article|Even though you have reverted your intial vandalism, these edits are still considered disruptive and blocks we be issued.}}
If there are no warnings on the page but you can see aload of self reverts in the history, assume good faith and give them the selfrevert warning, after that just go on with the uw-v series. The vandalism templates are there to be used for most situations. If you slap one of these on an editors talk page, no matter the semantics of the situation or whether he reverted it or not, they'll understand what the warning is for. Khukri17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback; I'm leery of jumping to level-3 warnings, even when the talk page is covered with warnings — AGF and all that. Nevertheless, I will surely consider what you have said in the future. --Aarktica17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding like a dick, I think people assume good faith too much. If someone's collecting a boatload of level 1 and 2 warnings, just jump right in with a 3 or 4, and/or report them to WP:AIV. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and that doesn't include having infinite patience with idiots; if they're just here to screw around and make our jobs harder, get rid of 'em. A good example: I just indefinitely blocked a user whose previous edits [2][3] had only garnered him a weak {{uw-vandalism2}}. Vandals are vandals; the less we coddle them, the better off we'll be. EVula// talk // ☯ //17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken; however, I believe that this is an effort in bending over backwards per WP:BITE. That said, I see how this can become dispiriting after a while, leading otherwise excellent contributors to leave the project in disgust.
As for the example you mentioned, I would be hard pressed to play devil's advocate. There may be an equilibrium point being short-tempered and overly long-suffering; but I am unsure about the location of the sweet spot, assuming one exists... --Aarktica18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a "let's assume good faith"-template, I think this one is to harsh!
This because it assumes the user wanted the result to be what it was. To me, an assume good faith here should have been more in the direction of "as your test did not come out so well, it has now been reverted or removed"... or something (please note this two last words.). The point with using a level1 warning is one still has hope for the editor, right? But I am not a native english speaker, so I don't know how english speakers would take this. Anyone seeing my point, or is it just me? Greswik19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this template, in the overgenerality of its wording, conflicts with the long-standng WP:REFACTOR. These templates should only be used when the refactoring (or deletion of course) appears to be a) in bad faith, or b) is nitpicky spelling-fascism types of edits. They should not be used for a) sensitive refactoring (such as correcting broken wikilinks in others' posts, fixing indentation levels, adding in missing attribution, etc.), b) archival of talk messages, or c) accuracy refactoring of poll results and other talk page items of a factual, not personal, nature. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ01:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I have posted this same message on the V2 talk page)
Let me first say that I think the folks who have been working on revamping the templates are doing a fantastic job. I know the project isn't done, and there is already much more consistency and clarity in the templates. That being said, I would also like to nitpick. Specifically, I think the current text of vandalism2 is too repetitive of vandalism1 - it says the same thing, though less. I appreciate the theory relating to assumptions of good faith, but, in practice, I don't see much point in giving a vandalism2 if you've already given a V1. My thought is to remove the, "as they could be considered to be vandalism" from V1. This does weaken it a bit, but it also makes it more consistent with the assumption of good faith.--Kubigula(talk)18:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no responses, I implemented the suggestion above. I see in the history that the reference to vandalism was added because it was thought the vandalism template should contain a reference to "vandalism", unlike the test1. However, this template is already much stronger than test1, as it labels the edits as unhelpful or unconstructive. This is very similar to the old VW template. Removing the reference to vandalism goes further to the assumption of good faith, and, IMO, makes vandalism2 a more effective upgrade template. As it was, I saw no real reason to use V2.--Kubigula(talk)22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately with some 400 odd warning templates, and the fact that these are a new system your message was missed. This inclusion of the word vandlism was discussed sometime ago at WT:UTM the focal point of all these templates. I will leave your edits for now, but I would like you to bring this up over there and gain some concensus on this issue. Regards Khukri - 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought about posting at UTM, but I thought it was more appopriate to do it here as it was a specific issue with a specific template. I will take it there. Thank you for your feedback.--Kubigula(talk)22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a discussion at WP:V, I'm considering to nominate this template for deletion. There is no such thing as a "good-faithed" vandalism, and the level 1 warnings assume good faith. In addition, I find that most users seem to treat a single {{uw-vandalism2}} as a level 1 warning - which lets the vandals know that Wikipedian users are too friendly to risk escalating to {{uw-vandalism3}}. Removing this template forces the first warning to be a level 2, and the second warning to be a level 3 (or level 4 if there's also a decision to discourage uw-vandalism3), which will speed up the escalation process for removing vandals. --Sigma 722:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When we set out these templates, we decided that it was possible to assume good faith with vandals. The long and short of it comes to down to a first time vandal that might not truly understand the consequences of mis-editing Wikipedia and the type of vandalism. By issuing this template as a gentle reproach for first time vandals might turn a potential future vandal away. Going in straight away with an escalated warning there's very little chance of them turning round. The problem is I believe on the RCP end of the system, due to the fact we see so much vandalism. It is very difficult to AGF with anyone vandalising for the first time amongst the blur of all the other vandalism.
The system is geared up for a 4 level system for blockable warnings and 3 levels for non blockable, with single notices and warnings also available. If we start chopping out bits and pieces here and there, then we may as well scrap the whole system, and return to the old fragmented system.
If editors are issuing first time vandals with level 2 or 3 warnings then I would be more inclined to believe there is a problem with the system. The fact is that editors are issuing the warnings with a view to only quashing the immediate vandalism. If a slightly gentler approach for a first time vandal, might bring a new editor to the project is always a net positive. This might be seen as cloud cuckoo land but I personally have seen editors turned round and then contribute to the community having received a warning and then an explanation of why what they did was wrong. To me this sums up the very tenants of assume good faith, for the sake of issuing one more template and by trying to make new editors realise that they have erred might in the long run help the community. Cheers Khukri23:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Khukri. A significant number of people stop vandalizing after they get the first warning, so I think the first warning should be relatively gentle (unless the vandalism was truly offensive). Also, a change of this signficance should probably be proposed at WT:UTM.--Kubigula(talk)00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was really discussed at WP:V? Perhaps you mean WP:VAN? Either way, I always felt that having a first-level vandalism warning dovetailed nicely with both WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Speaking from personal experience, I have observed many occasions where individuals have stopped after just the first warning, and it is not like having only three levels of vandalism is going to speed up our ability to have vandals blocked (especially since WP:AIV no longer requires a full set of warnings). --Kralizec! (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think all warnings need to be used in a 1, 2, 3, 4 sequence. I often do 1, 3, 4 or 2, 3, 4 depending on what the vandalism is and who the user is. I mean that putting {{uw-v1}} on a previous offender is pointless. The "grid" is not a tool made to escalation 1 step at a time : lv1 assumes good faith, lv2 is factual, lv3 assumes bad faith. -- lucasbfrtalk14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this discussion is here, until I move them all over to WP:UTM this evening, I'll respond. I couldn't agree more. I would sequence normally 1, 3, 4 for a first time editor and 2, 3, 4, for an infrequent vandal or returning vandal, and for a vandalism hotbed, either uw-bv or v4-im. I think anyone who follows these rules will always achieve a block. I also always explain when I report to AIV the sequence followed, and as far as I know have never had a block turned down. Cheers Khukri16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No response, despite it being brought up so I'm bringing it up again. All vandalism-related user talk template messages need the "diff" parameter added. ∞ΣɛÞ²(τ|c)14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea and I think it'll need to be somehow ORd in with the first parser argument. So instead of as you did to Article should look like as you did [[diff link|here]]. If one of you guys can give me a rough find replace look for to Article to if diff= ............. I can tweak the rest of the wordings by hand within AWB. Cheers Khukri07:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to be able to mention more than one article. I don't think it is possible with the current version. --MarSch10:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Level 1 is for assume good faith which means either it's a first time vandal and you want to tell them about how to conduct themselves on wikipedia, or it's for an edit you are not sure is vandalism. If someone had carried out multiple vandalism, then you'd go staright in with a level 3 or 4. You can also add the additional articles as extra text, such as
{{subst:uw-v3|article1|This is also applicable to your edits on [[article2]], [[article3]] & [[article4]].}} ~~~~
... edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed.
I've never liked this wording. The passive voice combined with the use of "considered" seems like an attempt to avoid responsibility by the template user. I think the wording ...edits appear to be unhelpful or unconstructive... would be a more accurate description of the process. It's also more diplomatic in the event of a mistake. Any thoughts on this matter? — Feezo(Talk)23:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the wording is a bit awkward, but I'm not sure I agree with the proposed solution. If there is any possibility that the edits were a legitimate attempt to edit the article, I think the appropriate warning should be {{uw-test1}}. I use V1 for the times when there is no doubt the edit was unhelpful or unconstructive (the "Bob likes to lick balls!!!!" variety). We can give them the benefit of the doubt that they were just experimenting rather than vandalizing, but it's hard not to say that the edit was, at best, unhelpful or unconstructive. By the way, I made my own pitch for rewriting V1 and V2 at WT:UTM#Changing V1 and V2, though without drawing much attention.--Kubigula(talk)03:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
has/have
MessedRocker recently reverted one of my changes as incorrect grammar: [5]. "One or more of your edits have [e.g., not has] been removed". I'm fairly sure this is bad grammar, but it might be a UK/US thing. Try on this sentence: One or more is enough vs. One or more are enough. I'm 98% sure the first is gramatically correct as one is the primary subject. The Evil Spartan16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I was curious as to this issue, so I did some research. Every source I looked at stated that when using "or", the verb should agree with the subject closest to the verb.[6][7][8] So, in this case, have is apparently correct.--Kubigula(talk)17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ich. Well it still sounds wrong to me. Maybe we could reword it to not sounds to awkward. Perhaps more or one of your recent edits has :P . The Evil Spartan17:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "more" in this way is a shortcut for "more than one". The sentences in question actually represent the one case where "more than one" calls for a plural verb.[9] However, I agree that it sounds unusual and is somewhat inconsistent, as "more than one editor" and "more than one of our editors" are both noun phrases that refer to X editors, where X > 1. Croctotheface08:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first say that I think the folks who have been working on revamping the templates are doing a fantastic job. I know the project isn't done, and there is already much more consistency and clarity in the templates. That being said, I would also like to nitpick. Specifically, I think the current text of vandalism2 is too repetitive of vandalism1 - it says the same thing, though less. I appreciate the theory relating to assumptions of good faith, but, in practice, I don't see much point in giving a vandalism2 if you've already given a V1. My thought is to remove the, "as they could be considered to be vandalism" from V1. This does weaken it a bit, but it also makes it more consistent with the assumption of good faith. I will repeat this suggestion on the V1 talk page.--Kubigula(talk)18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the vandal2 template should be strengthened and made a bit more explicit as a serious reminder, without being too accusatory in tone. I suggest the following be added:
"In the future, please remember that Wikipedia is a serious, online encyclopedia consulted daily by thousands of people around the world, who are seeking reliable, factual information."
-submitted by JGHowes11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone has these templates on their watchlists. May I suggest you repost your idea here WT:UTM which is the focal talk page for all user page templates. Regards Khukri17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing {{editprotected}} for now -- I'd prefer to see a stronger consensus in favor of the change. Doesn't seem like a bad topic for discussion, so feel free to continue to pursue this change. Add the template back after some more discussion, I guess. :) – Luna Santin (talk)22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support the making a change, but have another recommendation. In my experience, only experienced editors can tell the difference between {{uw-vandalism1}} and {{uw-vandalism2}}, as the same icon is used for levels 1 and 2. Changing this icon will let both other editors (as well as the recipient of the warnings) to know the difference between the two warnings. --Sigma 703:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a template for misleading edit summaries? I see one for using "minor" whien it's not, but not for people who post summaries that are misleading - I think we should ahe one if we don't. Tvoz|talk21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's not what I'm looking for though. I'm talking about edit summaries that claim the edits are about one thing but are hiding other edits of a major kind - misleading because they say things like "copy edit" when they mean "reverting to what I wanted in the first place" or they just don't mention a major edit while summarizing some other edit. This happens a lot on busy articles, where other editors may well miss several edits and when looking at history see edit summaries only and miss significant changes that were hidden. Tvoz|talk21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see this sometimes too, often you can tell because they write things like, "changing a word round to make it more clear", when in fact they are adding vandalism. See African elephant for some examples (all the Colbert stuff). I think though that, a template is not needed, you can use uw-vand. --Jackaranga04:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of specific templates?
What's the deal with the removal of more specific templates in favour of lumping them together in generic ones? The point of warning messages is to tell the user exactly what they did wrong, not allude to it vaguely. For example, the template drmmt series seems to have been removed (for removing maintenance templates like or, fact, etc without addressing the issues they have). Instead we're now directed to use a generic "you removed content from an article" template? That makes no sense and only serves to further confuse a new user.--Crossmr12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try {{uw-m1}} and {{uw-m2}}. If you really want, levels 3 and 4 can be created specifically for maintenance templates; however, the purpose of warning templates is to inform a user that our policy states than certain behavior can result in a block. If they already know from m1 and m2 that removing maintenance templates without good cause is Considered harmful, we can move to more standardized blanking-can-result-in-blocking warning templates. Best to keep it simple, I think. GracenotesT § 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-project and uw-template series
A user has created a Uw-project and uw-template series. These are meant for vandalism to a speciific namespace. Do we really need these? I think the uw-vandalism series works fine for all namespace. {And one again, maybe we should make it mandatory to suggest it on the talk page, so a little discussion can happen to see if we really need it or not.) --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 14:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about what benefit such specification can bring. At this point, it may be a good idea to consolidate redundant templates: TT was unbelievable crufty, and I'm sure we don't want to reform it twice. Vandalism is vandalism, and namespaces are essentially not something the policy differentiates. GracenotesT § 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why so many templates at lvl 4 redirect to vand4, was when we started this whole show, it was to try and cut down on the amount of templates that were in existance and to call certain types of edits, exactly as they are, vandalism. We also discussed and implemented, so as not to appear to boiler plate that every template has the capacity to add additional wording. This is done by the second parser and I think for the amount of times the above type of warning would be issued, the v series could be used in it's place, but making it more personalised. For the reasons you have all have mentioned above I'm not particularly in favour of these new templates though it should be noted we do have uw-upv and uw-tpv.
I've mentioned it before, but I now think any new templates that comes through here for the uw touch, so to speak, should be presented here, to give a chance for input and scrutiny of the community prior to posting them up on the front page. The templates that are presented on these pages are deemed to be official, and before they are open to use by all there should be at least some time allowed for reflection. Anyone is free to comment here so it's not like we are creating a template cabal, but I am beginning to believe this is important. Should we add this to the FAQ, with a guide to how to suggest, create implement or apply these templates? Khukri17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe putting another notice at the top of UTM saying to come here first? Also, I actually never thought of that fact that we have upv and tpv. Maybe we don't really need those either. Those should probably be redirected. As for the newest template and project ones, they haven't been put to use yet, so they can just be deleted. TFD? --RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uw-tpv is more about refactoring talk comments than vandalism (and perhaps should be renamed to something like {{uw-refactor1}}). As for Uw-upv, the only useful feature there is the note asking an anon to log in, which is useful for assuming good faith. I also use it for user page vandalism, although {{uw-v1}} might work nearly as well. GracenotesT § 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a little awkward. How about, "Please do not add unreferenced controversial biographical information to Wikipedia articles on living persons. Thank you."--Kubigula(talk)15:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that it does any harm. The lines he added full stops on are the comments you see when you hover the mouse over the item in the list. It doesn't affect the warning in itself. --Jackaranga22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uw-c&pmove
I updated the phrasing of this warning because it created a sentence fragment if all parameters weren't put in (I'm not sure how to get rid of the space before the period without causing a problem when the parameters are filled). The documentation for that warning needs to be changed to explain that it has an exta parameter to designate the destination of the cut & paste move. The full template should read {{subst:uw-c&pmove|Article cut from|to= Article pasted to|Additional text|subst=subst:}}. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the spaces need to be inserted only if the variable is present, but the #if strips leading spaces. The trick is to use a HTML entity for space, such as  . Check this diff to see it in action. Anomie01:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for a warning against impersonating other users (in particular, impersonating an admin) and either I missed it completely, or it doesn't exist. This is an obviously unacceptable practice and there should probably be a template message to those who do so. Bob fit08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It happens in my opinion very rarely, and I have always been of the opinion that a personalised message is always better. Due to the rarity of this type of problem getting the one size fits all type wording we have with most of the other warnings will be quite difficult. I would recommend writing a personal message. I have been involved with most of these templates since the start, and there have been so many times where I will write a personal message explaining why someone screwed up instead of a template. Impersonating an admin is a bit different, in all cases whether it's someone saying they are going to punish you (which a real admin wouldn't do) or just userboxes, report the matter to WP:ANI, it's much easier to approach the situation as an admin than arguing with someone who is is trying to bully different view points into submission. Khukri09:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uw-warn messed up
When I put "{{subst:uw-warn|Gilbert Arenas}}" it starts with this "Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made {#if:Gilbert Arenas|to Gilbert Arenas}}" The format is messed up. --AW15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the template that adds If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits.? I don't use it and can't find it but it was recommended that IP address be unlinked as that article gets a large amount of IP vandalism, most likely because we are giving the vandals a link to it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently reverted a user who left editorial comments in the article; not finding any appropriate template on WP:UTM, I ended up writing a comment in the style of a level-1 uw template for their talk page. Fortunately I checked the archives here before suggesting new templates for this purpose, and found mention of this template.
Hmmm. I meant to create a uw version of this template a while back, but I forgot. So, kudos to Khukri and Anomie for making it happen so quickly!--Kubigula(talk)13:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question about unsourced3 leading to v4 and being blockable
Hi,
About your edit to WP:UTM, removing the 4th level link to uw-v4, this was discussed quite a while ago, with regards to these type of warnings. In the end it came down to, if someone has received the full monty of warnings 1 - 3, and not initiated any discussions about the matter upon prompting, then this sort of edit, by forcing unsourced info upon the community without discussion and it is constantly being reverted did constitute as being vandalism. Cheers Khukri14:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you issued any of these warnings, because the only editor I've given a level 3 warning doesn't deserve a block for his next unsourced inclusion of content. Possibly a user RfC could be considered, however to be honest even that would heavy-handed. Addhoc14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflictConsidering I wrote over half of these warning, I would say it gives me a reasonable inkling of how they are used. You have misread the situation, if you issued a lvl3 unsourced warning, after his next inclusion, he would receive a v4 and then a block, not a block straight after his lvl3 as you wrote. In any given situation someone should receive a lvl1 or 2, depending on if they'd done it previously, then a lvl3 unsourced, then a v4. So to be blocked they would have had to have repeated the same offence 4 times without discussing the issue. No matter that this completely falls foul of 3rr, even with the best intentions in the world, I'd have trouble AGF with someone who had inserted info 4 times into the same article without discussion. Khukri15:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not sure from your response if you have actually ever used any of these warnings. Yep, ok you wrote them, however after I used them, I toned them down, because they seemed to be overkill. Could I suggest you have a look at User talk:Anishshah19 to see what I mean? Thanks, Addhoc15:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon no need to be facetious, of course I've used the warnings, anyone who is round here long enough uses them after a while admin or not. OK matter in hand, looks like your warnee has a done this at least once before, so I wouldn't have started with a level 1. Lvl2 on the other hand is quite explicit in it's instruction. Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you.. Now assuming they've ignored you, you given an explicit intruction not to insert this material with out discussing it. Then you issue lvl3, for ignoring your previous instruction, this is simple, you ignored the first warning, if you continue a block will be issued. After that, once issuing a v4, if you are ignored again then a block via WP:ANI would be the only option. I've reverted your change as well to unsourced3, changes like this should be discussed at WT:UTM. It is clear you disagree with me in this, so I have copied this discussion over to WT:UTM to gain greater input. Khukri15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that there should exist a less severe warning on copyright issues. {{Uw-copyright1}} currently redirects to {{Uw-copyright}}, which immediately starts threatening with blocks and such, while new (or anonymous) users may not even be aware of our strict copyright policy. What about redirecting {{Uw-copyright1}} and {{Uw-copyright2}} to {{Nothanks}} instead? SalaSkan21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because copyright violations are a serious problem for Wikipedia that can cause legal problems for the Wikimedia foundation. Also, why would we redirect a uw- warning to an old warning? --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree, copyright violations are a serious issue, and if nobody would block a 1st time violator, they need to understand that the violation is severe. -- lucasbfrtalk13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had this on the corner of my desk for a while now, I removed all the licensing text from the template, and redirected the people using {{db-copyvio}} to a new template, {{sd-copyvio}}. subliminal message: guys, we need to start these templates one day. -- lucasbfrtalk16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template code should be placed in shortcut toolbox
Would it not make warnings a lot easier if the codes could be placed in the box with shortcuts for code and extra characters that appears just below the text in the editing screen? We could then just type the name of the article, it would surely save a lot of time. Obviously we wouldn't need all of them, but we could fit almost all of the commonly used templates on a single line. Richard00100:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there plenty of scripts you can install into your monobook.js (or equivalent) that do that sort of thing for you and more? And as a bonus, the whole list of templates isn't there to confuse newbies. Anomie00:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it depends upon the severity of said user's vandalism. If it's a relatively minor offense, you might consider adding {{subst:Welcome-anon-vandal}} or some other warning to their talk page. For more minor warnings for an IP address, look about halfway down this page. If the offense was more severe, go to this page and post the warning that fits their offense on their talk page. For example, if the user removed a little bit of content from an article once, you might consider adding the appropriate level 1 warning {{subst:uw-delete1}} to their page. If they do it again, or they deleted more content, add a level 2 warning {{subst:uw-delete2}}. There are 4 warning levels, each increasing in severity before the user is blocked. Ok, that explanation probably didn't make much sense—if you want a better explanation, feel free to ask me on my talk page or wait for another user to reply. Arwen Undomieltalk06:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any rationale behind {{uw-delete}} and {{uw-delete2}} referring only to "articles" rather than to the more inclusive "pages"? It seems to be the only applicable template for content removal for pages as well. Noting that {{uw-delete3}} and {{uw-delete4}} in the same series both refer to pages, I suspect there is no specific rationale and, unless I'm wrong, suggest harmonizing the first two.--Fuhghettaboutit01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the uw-delete templates are referring to more than just articles, I removed the article references on uw-1 & 2 so that they can be used on other pages besides articles. --Hdt83Chat06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement; I'm almost certain there was no conscious rationale for using the word "article" in those two templates.--Kubigula(talk)18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest adding a new message template that specifically addresses when people repeatedly insert or re-add blatant grammar and formatting errors to articles, such as in the following two counterproductive edits that have been made over and over again by two accounts: example one,
example two. I have not seen any message template that addresses that specific problem. The vandalism template seems too generic.Spylab13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something along the lines of a vandalism warning that has different levels. This is specifically for people who clearly have no grasp of the English language and who re-insert the same terrible grammar and formatting errors to articles over and over again.Spylab17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are good faith edits, just poorly done, my own opinion would be that escalating warnings would be inappropriate. I've run across the type you're talking about in my own editing. Leaving a personal note that you're going to help out by cleaning up their "Russ-lish", "Spang-lish" or whatever, works much better especially if you're careful to phrase it in a helpful manner. If they revert your fixes, that's another story entirely, though. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to enumerate warnings for organisational purposes on userpages, as with this:
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
Note, however, that the size of the third-level warning's image (25 px) causes it to run into the 4th warning -- causing indentation. Reducing the warning to 15 pixels solves the issue. My only issue is with images in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level warnings classes paired with single lines of text (note how in this case, 1st and 2nd level do not overrun). For 4th level, I do not see issue: my formatting provides two lines of whitespace between the final warning and the admin notification and/or administrative act; so it clears it up. Any other concurrence with reducing image sizes for 1st, 2nd, or 3rd lvl warnings paired with single lines of text (see below)?
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
I strongly agree with reducing all the image sizes in these warnings. The gap below the initial line (due to the leading image) is distinctly unprofessional. Could someone go through them all and reduce the icon size to 15px? --Quiddity20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Article, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the slight gap between the first and second lines of text on the level one and two templates, frankly I'd never have noticed it if you hadn't pointed it out. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people like numbering some like icons, and having gone backwards n forwards on this a few times, this comes up as being the best solution. If anyone can find a way of allowing the two to mix then recommend away (don't mention tables, already been there as well look it up), but we're always open to suggestions. Khukri21:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I haven't seen discussed is the mentioned vertical alignment idea:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Article, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elipongo wrote: "If you're talking about the slight gap ..." Yup, the slight gap which drives typography/design folks nuts! Though with all the people using sub/superscript in their signatures around here (which also cause a gap (and yes, as do the citation superscript numbers)), one would think it was normal to ignore erratic leading... ;) --Quiddity18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is indeed that widespread, then the correct course would be to make a feature request or a bug report so the problem can be solved project wide. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bug report was made and according to the report, this is what is supposed to happen when you float images to the left and line them up. See [11] --Hdt83Chat07:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a request for a template for letting people know they should upload their (free use) images to Commons, however I haven't had any response thus far. I've used the text by copying and pasting four times yesterday, and I will no doubt use it again in the future as well. I think others would also benefit from using this template and being given such messages. The proposal can be found at WP:TR#A notice for people who upload media to Wikipedia instead of Commons. I would make the template myself, but I have no experience making this type of template, so I probably wouldn't make a very good job of it. Richard00100:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's at {{Un-commons}}. I added some text to make it clear that fair use/non-free content should not be uploaded to commons. We don't want to send problems their way. Can an editor better at template coding than I am please fix the usage section so it doesn't include the header? Also, the word "to" is not appearing in the first usage section, right after "images/media".--Fuhghettaboutit11:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? I didn't see any problem with the word "to", unless it was because the page needed purging (when you transclude a template into itself, purging is often required). Anomie12:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks., much better. I did ctrl+f5 before I posted the issue regarding the "to" not showing up; I think my cache is stubborn (reagrdless, it's fixed now). Please make any other improvements you (or anyone) deem appropriate. I haven't categorized it yet. Do you think it goes in user warning templates? It doesn't seem like a perfect fit but many templates in that category are not quite "warnings".--Fuhghettaboutit13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need two sets of templates for doing the same thing. The templates are just about the same anyway, just the uw templates look more professional - we should standardise the way we warn vandals. Ryan Postlethwaite23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us feel that the new templates look far less professional. Given the fact that these aren't used in articles, there really isn't any harm in having more than one set; vandal warnings needn't be uniform in appearance. —David Levy23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block templates
On the block templates, should the images be changed to ? After all, the x has a transparent background, and SVG's really have no advantage considering that Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox render them as PNG's. What do you guys think? Springbob Squirepants02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to the relevant edit (e.g. vandalism)
When I add a warning I like to add a link to the relevant diff as well. Perhaps these templates could include a second field added after the first pipe to allow for the inclusion of that diff in the warning itself, such as {{uw-bv|introduced species|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduced_species&curid=394815&diff=143190671&oldid=141911373}}. Richard00100:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second field in most uw templates is used to add additional comments, in place of "Thank you" in the AGF and neutral versions. IMO, a named parameter for a diff link wouldn't be out of place though. Anomie01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, we originally intended the second parser (which exists in all templates, or should) to be used for this type of thing. This isn't the first request we've had for this, and I think as it a standard in all of the vandal fighting tools maybe we should include it in the templates.
Is it possible to embed two parsered if's? so you end up with something along the lines of [[:{{{1}}}]] or [{{{diff}}}|:{{{1}}}]. If someone can tell me the exact syntax either myself or Hdt can do a find replace on all the templates. Khukri09:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean something like {{#if:{{{1|}}}|as you did in {{#if:{{{diff|}}}|[{{{diff}}} {{{1}}}]|[[:{{{1}}}]]}}}}? Anomie18:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh as easy as that ;), can you run a test page on the page following please. Each page is slightly different so I imagine I'll need to do them all one by one but using AWB. User:Khukri/temp. Show me it in action (so to speak) and I'll sort it out. Khukri19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking for. In general though, replacing the [[:{{{1}}}]] with {{#if:{{{diff|}}}|[{{{diff}}} {{{1}}}]|[[:{{{1}}}]]}} should do the trick. Note that this #if shouldn't be included in the {{{subst|}}} trick, for the same reason the "subst=subst:" shouldn't be used unless the article name is supplied.
Blatant spam
I think we could do with a warning just like {{uw-bv}} except for spam. It's inappropriate to give someone a 'last warning' or 'only warning' template for their first offense, but when it's blatant advertising, which it usually is, something gentler but making it clear that they can be blocked without further notice if they persist would help. {{uw-bs}}, anyone? Richard00100:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I think you can just use uw-spam4im. I really don't see how you can decide when to use bv and 4im anyway. Also, we may be feeding the vandals with that proposed template name. :) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon, I've asked Evilclown for some clarification, if the warning was infact for citing Godwin's Law or was it for this which I think more likely? Edit Also this isn't the correct forum for these types of problems, I would suggest WP:ANI in future. Khukri13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that earlier; looking at the context, it appears to me as vaguely relevant nonsense rather than blatantly defamatory information. Anomie13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, that has to be it. I can see the reason someone might cite me on that. I was just providing "evidence" that the "cunting cunt" was in wikipedia, at least at some point. 24.205.34.21721:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
misleading edit summaries
I mentioned this a while ago and would like to request it now: I think a template for misleading edit summaries would be a good idea. I'm talking about when it says something like "cleanup" or "typo" or some other misleading thing but really means "changed the meaning" - similar to marking something as "m" when it isn't. A template for that would be useful - it can be a little different from just straight-up vandalism, as it is designed to sneak vandalism in and get people not to look at the change. Anyway, I'd find it useful. Tvoz|talk17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is appropriate to give a "one time only" warning, rather than repeated warnings. If you are only going to warn someone once then it needs to be worded slightly differently (ie only warning, rather than final warning). John Hayestalk13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when any first time warnings are issued, editors should receive at least a lvl 1 which is WP:AGF, and then perhaps a 3 then 4. If it is a IP address that has offended before, remember there's a high chance it's not the same person behind that IP then a neutral warning (lvl2) followed by a lvl4 should suffice. The IM warnings are used for high level vandal IP's, such as a schools , institution, common ISP's, or vandalism which is deemed to be particularly nasty, but often all will be blocked on sight if an admin sees it first. There is a increasingly prevalent use of the im or bv warnings on first time vandals which IMHO do not warrant this, and I may take a look into writing something up to prevent this.
The whole system should be geared up towards flexibility, whilst trying to maintain our standards whilst dealing with people who might not have the same level of integrity, and at all times even in the face of adversity, trying to assume good faith. Khukri15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure what you are talking about here. Can you give more details like what templates we are dealing with? --Hdt83Chat05:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a link to BJAODN, but a point was raised that this probably just served to feed and/or encourage joke vandalism. I've come to agree with this point - don't feed the vandals.--Kubigula(talk)17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think telling users not to make jokes, and telling them we have a special page for jokes and joke edits, in the same sentence, is a bit contradictory, as Kubigula says, it can only encourage vandalism. John Hayestalk18:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this
Would somehthing like this be worth while. I thought of this today but others may think its a waist of time of effort.
Any have a look if you like put it to use possibly.
Well, this may confuse some users in to thinking that the IP info at the end may the signature of the IP who left that message which would not be good. If you look at WP:UW, we already have a similar template (Template:S/wnote displaying the IP addresses information and contribs. --Hdt83Chat
Done Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Reported to Admin
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Article, you may be blocked from editing. Hersfold (talk/work) 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
, instead of this one: 
. - Super48 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
this one, personally the stop looks a bit bland, but depends what other think. Khukri 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
. - Super48 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Hdt83 Chat 04:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=icon}
? After all, the x has a transparent background, and SVG's really have no advantage considering that Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox render them as PNG's. What do you guys think? Springbob Squirepants 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)