Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 8

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

← Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 →

Template idea/request

Removal of redirect

For the instances when editors remove redirects, thus basically reinstating an old version of an article that was moved, resulting in two articles with basically the same content. I have seen this so many times, and there is no existing template message that I can find that covers this issue.

Proposed Single issue notice draft at:

User:ArielGold/template

{{subst:User:ArielGold/template|Article|Extra Text}}

Appears as:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! We appreciate all editors coming to help improve the encyclopedia. However, it appears that one of your edits recently removed an existing redirect. Please do not remove redirects, because it splits the article's page history, which is needed for attribution, and creates two variants of the same article. Instead, please discuss your concerns about the redirect on the main article's talk page, and propose possible solutions. Redirects created from page moves should remain in place, unless consensus is reached by the community to change them. Thank you. ^Ariel♥Gold 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts? (Feel free to edit the template as needed if I've made a mistake with scripting.) ^Ariel♥Gold 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's nicely written. I haven't personally run into this situation much myself, so I can't speak to the need for a template message.--Kubigula (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-unsor1}}

After using {{uw-unsor1}} and then hearing a reasonable objection to the wording from the receiving editor at my talk, I made bold changes to {{uw-unsor1}} and {{uw-unsor2}} I looked at {{uw-unsor3}} but decided that politeness was not indicated for it, so did not make changes to it. A few more talk page comments followed as indicated on my talk and now I am bringing the changes here for review and comment change to uw-unsor1 and change to uw-unsor2. Essentially I have added a polite section that implies the editor is familiar with policy but some how the references did get saved on the current version of the article. To the second template {{uw-unsor2}} I added a bit offering to help if the editor is not familiar with how to add references. Thoughts or comments? Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and of course, not to the question you asked;-) . But I think the level 3 is to nice, compared to the other level 3-s. It should have no "thank you" at the ending, should it? Most of them don't even have the sandbox-comment. It is assumed the user in question allready know about the sandbox when we have to issue a level 3 warning. Greswik 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-subst}}

I left this template for someone the other day and they came back to me for an explanation. I think it could use some clarification. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion

This page is huge. I suggest moving the tables of templates into different sub-pages, and transcluding them back to the main Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 14:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

35K doesn't seem huge. Is this really a problem? EdJohnston 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to clarify. I meant huge in the sense of the template box lists. Users who may wish to add or edit the current template boxes might have some trouble adding to them. Editing by sections eases this issue, but I just thought that sub-pages could be more efficient. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-notenglish}}

Is there a variant of notenglish that is more suitable for articles? In particular, there was a Portuguese article written, and the message I used isn't optimal. --Sigma 7 02:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-afd1}}

Is there a variant of this series of templates which can be used for people removing fair use warnings from their user talk pages? This is something I came across in User talk:BrothaTimothy whilst patrolling the Recent Changes Log for vandalism. The template didn't really say what I needed it to say, but I used it nonetheless. Thanks. --Tckma 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Warnings about users removing warnings from their own pages seems to be frequently requested… If the user has taken care of the problem image (even if "taking care of it" means "let it be deleted"), why shouldn't they remove the warnings? Anomie 11:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Even more templates

I was wondering if these should be included here and/or standardized/merged?

Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages

Thanks. - Rocket000 02:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the level4 warning templates slightly

So as to make them less inflammatory. Instead of "This is your last/only warning", they read "This is the last/only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits".--Avant Guard 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"McGonegal rocks!" - vandalism, NPOV, or other?

When a user ads a comment like "McGonegal is the best character in the HP series", what should we do? A NPOV warning seems a bit too mild, but it's an on-topic coversation, so it's not quite vandalism. Do we need one that fits between them, like "this comment was written in an un-encyclopedic tone"?--SarekOfVulcan 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on where it is. If it's on an HP page, it's just silly stupid stuff. If it's on, say, Abraham Lincoln, it's vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-afd}} suggestion

Is it worthwhile to create uw-cfd and uw-mfd templates corresponding to the {{uw-afd}} series of templates? Alternately, perhaps we can add a parameter to the uw-afd tags so that they can be used for category and miscellany for deletion notices as well? Something along the following lines:

It would be appreciated if you would not remove {{
#switch:{{{type}}}
 |afd=[[Template:Afd|Articles for deletion notices]]
 |cfd=[[Template:Cfd|Categories for deletion notices]]
 |mfd=[[Template:Mfd|Miscellany for deletion notices]]
 |[[Template:Afd|Articles for deletion notices]]
}} or remove other people's comments in {{
#switch:{{{type}}}
 |afd=[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion debates]]
 |cfd=[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion|Categories for deletion debates]]
 |mfd=[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|Miscellany for deletion debates]]
 |[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion debates]]
}}

If so, the templates might have to be moved to uw-xfd or similar. --Muchness 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect templates

Hi i believe that the test templates (ex {{test}}, {{test2}} ect.) should be redirected to the appropriate WP:UTM template because the templates are on that page are designed to replace Template:TestTemplates--AFUSCO 00:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why?

What was the point in redirecting {{bv}} to {{uw-vandalism3}}? They are completely different messages. Bad form IMO. KOS | talk 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Most if not all of the templates have been restored. KOS | talk 20:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Uw-npov1

The level 1 template for NPOV violations seems a tad accusatory when you include an article name as the first parameter (the sentence added when you specify a first parameter reads, "It appears you have not followed this policy at article name."). To avoid biting the newbies, I'd like to modify the sentence to carry a bit more explanation of the problem and focus less on the formalities of policy (a tone more appropriate for level 2). I'm thinking something like, "A contribution you made to article name appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem." Anyway, I wanted to bring this up here first since the UW template pages note that the texts have been carefully crafted, and I didn't want to change anything without some indication of consensus first. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 06:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Silence taken as consent. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-disambig1}}

Hmm, first time I've found an instance of an anon user apparently making a misguided but good faith edit to a disambig to add their definition of the term before the disambig list (page was ORP).

I've tagged his talk page with a message pointing out that he should create a new article and add a link on the disambig, although in this case I think he's looking to add a non-definition rather than anything else, but I was at a loss as to which of the standard warnings would be most appropriate.

It wasn't obviously a test edit, may have been nonsense or vandalism but assuming good faith means I assume not, and I wasn't able to identify a template that seemed "right". Any suggestions? Do we need a template to cover "creating an article on a disambiguation page"? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 22:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this is an unusual enough situation that a personal message is preferable to a template.--Kubigula (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

When I have run into this issue, I have used {{uw-test1}} if the addition definition was made by an anon/new editor, or a personalized message if the editor is not new, but not familiar with WP:NOT. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

appropriate warning template for future date of death?

I came across this edit today:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Howard_Zinn&diff=prev&oldid=163568953

i couldn't figure out what the appropriate warning template would be, so i just put the standard uw-vandalism3 ("Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Howard Zinn, you will be blocked from editing.")

in this case, i think posting a future date of death for a public figure might warrant a more severe action, like immediate blocking, especially for a user with such a colored history in posting vandalism. is there a template that might cover this case, where not-so-thinly veiled threats are made? Theroyalweman (talk|user|contribs) 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked the IP based on the history and the ignoring of warnings. It's a school address, so I think it's just kids fooling around. The deliberate error series ({{uw-e1}}, {{uw-e3}}) is good for this situation. If it was an actual death threat, that should be escalated to another forum - perhaps WP:AN/I.--Kubigula (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As Kubigula indicated, this is exactly what {{uw-error1}}, {{uw-error2}}, and {{uw-error3}} were created for. Deliberate misinformation like the edits you describe is perhaps one of the most insidious types of vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins issuing warnings

Hi, everyone. I have an issue which may have been discussed in the past but I believe deserves a fresh look. Specifically, it has to do with non-admins issuing level 3 and above warnings to other editors. Recently an editor issued myself an another person level 3 warning accusing us of vandalism. We had made exactly one edit each which contributed to the articles. Naturally, we were nervous about this admin issuing us such stern warnings for a legit edit. When we went to complain about this we were told he is indeed *not* an admin. We were confused how and why a non-admin can ussing a level 3 warning (which says "you will be blocked..."). Moreover, it is clear he used this warning in order to gain a psychological advantage in his warn. I submit that non-admins not be allowed to issue warnings. Telling people to simply ignore it fosters an environment where new and casual editors (like myself) become nervous and scared about further editing attempts. Thank you. Bstone 01:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism and engaging in edit wars are warnable and blockable actions... Other than the fact that it was you who was warned, what has changed to warrant a new discussion on this oft-trod issue? Leuko 02:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, are you kidding me? All I made was my first edit on the AUA page, and I got this intimidating "level 3" warning on my Talk page. It basically said, "you will be blocked..." My second option was to do a consensus. But guess what? I left a message on AUA Talk page that was left unanswered for 24 hours. It was apparent you weren't ready for any kind of consensus for whatever reasons, so I had to resort to my choices of reporting you to the admin forum. Basically, if I changed the page, I would be threatened with banning. If I post on the Talk page, my request goes unanswered. If you were in my place, what would have you done? By the way, we did a consensus and the results were as expected - the majority was against you. If one not only makes unsound judgments, but also threatens people with banning - that's a very dangerous combination. DrGladwin 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to warn someone a block is coming, you just need to be correct about it a reasonable amount of time. Admins have special powers, not special authority. Normal editors have just as much responsibility to enforce policy. If a person has a history of leaving incorrect warnings, leave a warning on their talk page about it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1 == 2, this is the current situation, but as you read in my above first post I suggest that these warnings should not be available for regular editors to issue. Specifically, they insinuate that the warning editor (Leuko in the above situation) actually has the ability to ban someone. Imagine our surprise when we found this not to be the case at all. Imagine how we felt when we were given this warning which was over the top by someone who has no ability to carry it out. I suggest that level 3 and above warnings not be available for non-admin editors to issue. Thank you. Bstone 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the level 3 warning is that non-admin may be reluctant to use it. They may think that they can't block others so the threat is a potentially idle threat. It's true that it can be reported to AIV. However, the trouble with that is the admin's judgement can be different (either too stern and blocks even if the warning is falsely given or too lax and ignores warnings). In practice, it's not a great problem. However, it might be better to reword template level 3 to say "...steps will be taken to block you" rather than "you will be blocked". Archtransit 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If the warned individual fails to heed the warning, then the warning editor just heads over to WP:AIV, reports the individual, and the next administrator to stop by will briefly review the situation and (if everything's kosher) block the user. A non-admin may not have the ability to place the block, but they have the ability to report the situation to those who do, and that's just as good. It seems to me that your issue is different from what you're suggesting as a solution, namely that you feel that some folks abuse the higher-level warnings when a lower-level warning will do. Conflating the two issues only makes it harder to resolve either one. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 06:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Your suggestion is just not how things work here. Admins are not referee's and regular editors are just as allowed to enforce policy as anyone else. There are places they can go to have the block enforced. I think it should stay that way, and I think it is very much likely to stay that way. I read your comment in full. Users who abuse the warnings can be dealt with. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors who purposefully use (incorrect) warnings to intimidate other users, or who never learn how to use them with any accuracy may be subjected to community sanctions banning them from using warnings. However, with only 1,347 admins, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of vandals disallowing regular users from issuing level 3 and 4 warnings is simply not an option. Keep in mind that your situation is the exception, not the rule. Users are discouraged from skipping 2 or more warnings except in extreme circumstances. The Hybrid 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)So you're suggesting because some one does not have the technical ability to enforce policy besides giving warnings, they should not even be able to tell blatant vandals what the result of their continued actions will be? Policy says: You vandalize, you get blocked. Why can non-admins not say what policy is? Wikipedia only has ~1300 admins, not all are active and many do not do vandalism patrol. I don't even know where to start to tell all of the problems this could cause. Mr.Z-man 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr Z, not sure if you read all what I wrote. I clearly wrote that in this case the editor who issued the warning was doing so entirely baselessly. He was unhappy with our edits (which were in no way vandalism) but immediately issued a level 3 vandalism warning. Naturally, this is frustrating and brings up a whole host of questions and issues which I present above. Again- the warning was used in an attempt to get myself and another editor to not edit an article, not because there was actual vandalism occurring. Bstone 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No editor, admin or not is supposed to give incorrect warnings. But people make mistakes and we assume good faith, we're all human, nobody is perfect. Forbidding non-admins from issuing level 3 or 4 warnings is not going to help anything, it'll just make a ton of other problems a lot worse. I'm not saying you are a blatant vandal, but your suggestion would not allow warnings to be given to even the most blatant vandals, if the warning editor is not an admin. Mr.Z-man 06:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, if individual users abuse the warnings, then they can be dealt with individually. However, what all of us are trying to say is that banning non-admins from issuing warnings entirely is impractical. The Hybrid 06:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless a user is leaving a warning that says "I personally will block you", this is a misperception on the part of the warned party. Non-issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It recently fooled two of us who are casual editors here. Clearly, not a non-issue. Bstone 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You've taken it to ANI, so they will deal with the editor individually if need be. Do you understand why banning regular users from issuing warnings is an impractical idea? The Hybrid 06:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dachannien, The Hybrid and Mr. Z-man. THis reads more like two newer editors feel bullied, and instead of asking us to stop one bully, they want us to deputize some editors to have special powers (access to templates) when we could continue as we are now at wikipedia, allowing all to fix the prject, and encouraging editors to read up on major policies like vandalism. ThuranX 06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Never for a moment do I suggest that there should be no method for editors to issue warnings, but in my opinion they must be different from those that admins can issue. There should be a softer or different tone, different wording, etc. Otherwise it can (and has) been exploited by people who are looking for just another tool to solidify their edits and scare other editors away. Bstone 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone goes around replacing page text with pictures of genitalia, we should not be replying to that with soft toned warnings. Especially if tey do it multiple times after receiving those soft toned warnings. The warning templates are designed to escalate. "it can (and has) been exploited by people who are looking for just another tool to solidify their edits and scare other editors away." - Just because 0.1% of the time the warnings are misused (if that) is not a reason to abandon the current system. Deal with the user, don't try to change the whole system. If after working fine for years your car doesn't start, do you go out immediately and buy a new car? No, you deal with the specific problem. Mr.Z-man 07:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can accept that. I hope that this specific problem is dealt with very quickly. Thank you. Bstone 07:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal's recent edit that removed content

I'm a bit confused. I tried to warn an IP who removed content from Thomas and Friends - Season 1 but I couldn't figure what recent edit should be mentioned. Should be a last edit? TobytheTramEngine 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The current templates aren't designed to include a link to the actual edit. You can, however, reference the impacted article in the template, and that should hopefully be enough to make clear what edit you are referring to. In this case, you could use:

{{subst:uw-delete1|Thomas and Friends - Season 1}}--~~~~.

Alternately, you don't have to reference any article at all, though that can lead to confusion.--Kubigula (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

uw-delete1

I've been bold and changed the text of {{uw-delete1}} to:

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia.

• If this was a mistake, don't panic as the text has been restored from the page history. To check your work you can use the Preview or Show Changes buttons before you save.
• When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary. Discuss edits which are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page.

Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

The idea is to catch valid problems with should be reported on the talk page. Please let me know what you think (if there are any problems, feel free to revert and discuss here). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really like it at first, but it's growing on me. It does offer more guidance, which is not a bad idea for a level one template. I would, however, suggest switching the order of the two bullet points.--Kubigula (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, as someone who uses this template rather a lot, I'm not a fan of the bullet point style. Whilst I would not be against a rewording, I would suggest that this is made into the same format as the rest of the user warnings. It currently looks rather messy and out of place when on talk pages (in my opinion at least). Will (aka Wimt) 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No!!! I appreciate the intent and the effect in its own little world, but looking at the bigger picture it makes it impossible to turn an unorganized mess of a talk page into something useable to those who are trying to determine a user's history at a glance. Please find a better way! --Kbh3^rdtalk 00:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the concerns above, I have changed it back to a single paragraph warning, while preserving most of h2g2bob's language. Any other concerns or comments?--Kubigula (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ♥ It's a nice improvement from before h2g2bob started on it, and it should work well in this form. --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kubigula's edit - nicely done :) --h2g2bob (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Subst paramter

Can this be added to the icon template call? Rich Farmbrough, 12:27 15 October 2007 (GMT).

Civility

Are there generally civility warning templates? I couldn't put my finger on them. Carlossuarez46 03:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a general civility template or series. The AGF series ({{uw-agf1}} etc) is probably the closest thing.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, perhaps we ought to consider them. I encounter it off and on and it seems undue effort to try and construct something on the fly. Carlossuarez46 05:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Uw-test1

"Your test worked..." What if the test didn't work? Josh 03:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't be a test, it wouldn't have worked / been saved and we wouldn't have seen it, so no need to issue a comment on it. It's for first time editors, and where you see the ubiquitous asdasdjsdfhfhhfhkasklls which generally indicates someone is seeing if what they type appears in the article once saved. ^Khukri 08:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If an anonymous user makes one of those sorts of edits and then immediately deletes their changes, I will often leave them a {{uw-selfrevert}} message. However, as always YMMV. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What if someone added the following "HTML code" to an article: Test Would we tell them their test worked? Josh 15:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even though it's an assanine question, the temnplate is for the fact that they are doing editing tests to find out how wikipedia works in article space, not on whether the syntax of their test was correct or not. Also these templates are used for common occuring situations and do not cover every single perceivable possibility that could occur and in no way stop you from leaving a personal message, which would be the preferable option. ^Khukri 16:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon Vandal

Are there any "lower level" IP vandal warnings besides anon vandal? Anon vandal seems too harsh in most cases, but it would be nice to have, for example, uw-vandalism2 for IPs say: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as further warnings, temporary blocks, or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own." It seems like that would be more clear to anyone who didn't do the vandalism, but still uses the same IP. Mike6271 10:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes when {{uw-vandalism2}} appears to harsh, I will instead use {{uw-test2}}. Depending on the situation, {{uw-delete2}} or {{uw-error2}} could also be used. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Experienced users

I have been told at WP:ANI that these templates must not be used for experienced editors. Could the main page be amended to shew this? Thank you. DuncanHill 12:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As I noted there, concencus is that WP:DTTR is a useful essay, not a guideline. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kralizec, it was A Train's comment that led me to post here. BTW, I'd never heard of DTTR before. DuncanHill 12:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the only way I found out about the DTTR essay was when someone told me I was rude for using a {{uw-warn}} template on a long time editor. While I am on record [1] as objecting to DTTR`s elevation to guideline status, I do not disagree with the belief that personalized messages work better for established editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggest a slightly stronger wording for Uw-vandalism1, something at least to the extent of 'if you continue, you may be blocked'

Vandalism is, by definition, purposeful, so it's really hard to 'assume good faith' when someone takes an article and replaces it with the word 'fuck' 300 times. HalfShadow 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

When someone does that, don't use {{uw-vandalism1}}. {{uw-vandalism4im}} could be appropriate in that case, or start with level 2 for less clear-cut cases where good faith cannot be assumed. Anomie 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's useful to have a soft warning available to deal with what may well be someone's first attempt to edit Wikipedia. It's quite possible they didn't realize the software would really allow them to replace the article with the word fuck. Personally, I like to start with the level one template unless the vandalism is hateful, and I'd estimate that people stop after the one warning at least half the time. Moreover, Anomie is absolutely correct that there is no requirement that you begin with a level one warning, particularly in situations where it is impossible to assume good faith.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well,no, I generally start with level two anyway, since, as I said, vandalism is pretty much purposeful. I was just saying having a 'good faith' warning is a bit odd for something like vandalism, that's all. When someone throws a rock through your window, it's hard to believe they didn't mean to... HalfShadow 03:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy is the art of saying, "nice doggy" while searching for a rock to throw. And so on. You can still sound nice while not feeling it. Think of Dolores Umbridge, smiling and sweetly saying, "Welcome to Wikipedia..." with her ice-cold heart. My point being, it doesn't hurt to keep first contact, especially, soft. As a "fer example", yesterday I used a {{uw-vand1}} on someone who had made 5 serial unconstructive edits, and today I received this reply:

Oops - I was wondering how things worked on wikipedia. I did not intend for it to be a bad thing. I meant to undo it but I forgot. I'm sorry and I will not do it again. Sorry to bother you'

A nice resonse, so I'm glad I didn't bite the newcomer. For those who really deserve it, you can start with uw-vand2 or greater. (This from someone who finds himself more and more curmudgeonly from vandal fighting.) --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"It's quite possible they didn't realize the software would really allow them to replace the article with the word fuck [repeated 200 times]." LOL, I suppose you're right, people can be that dumb. I personally don't understand why someone would even try that in good faith, instead of "Will this work?" or something inoffensive. Anomie 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My own rule of thumb: usage of any of the seven dirty words is the prime determining factor on whether an editor receives a {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-vandalism1}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Guidance on signatures

This would be a good place to point out to novices (like me!) that you should use a signature when warning a user. (At least, I believe that's what I'm supposed to do, from reading other pages.) If I were more certain of that, I'd even be bold and edit the article myself. Sadly, no. JayLevitt 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there any versions of this warning which do not include an ethnic slur?

This is driving me nuts! Jacob Haller 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What slur on which warning? --Kralizec! (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to Vandal as the "ethnic slur". I have to admit that's a new one to me.--Kubigula (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any more Vandals roaming around to object to being slurred. —Quicksilver^{T @} 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a grain of truth in what Jacob wrote. We do use the word "vandal" a lot. Regardless if there is still an ethnicity that identifies itself with that term, it is not the best way to achieve our goal. It's always more productive to focus on what a person did, instead of calling them any names. Therefore, I write simply: "your edit was not helpful". I propose to change that in the templates, too. — Sebastian 06:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not say you are a vandal, we say your edit could be seen / were vandalism, and I think if you proposed this change at either WP:UTM or WP:UW, then I think you'd find the answer would be quickly no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khukri (talk • contribs)

If the templates get changed in this fashion, let me know. I'll just fork the ones that mention "vandalism" so that I and others can continue using them. Why we shouldn't call a spade a spade - and call vandalism vandalism - is beyond me. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 12:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As with Hydra, to take offence with a word who's derivation is 2000 years old is taking it to the extreme, and to use terms like ethnic slur is taking political correctness sensibilities just a tad to far. ^Khukri 07:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please, folks, don't fall in the trap of discussing if this is or isn't an issue of political correctness. As I wrote above, that's irrelevant in this case. Instead, we should simply be concise and to the point. "Your edit can be seen as <name calling>" is obviously less concise than "Your edit was not helpful". Using something that only "could be seen as" just adds an unnecessary level of distraction and complexity. Let's just simply say how we see it. — Sebastian 07:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We refer to vandals as vandals, true, but the warnings say things like unconstructive edits may be considered vandalism - that is not exactly the same as saying "you're a vandal". I think it hammers home the point, especially when we're talking about 2nd, 3rd or 4th warnings. Is there any evidence that gentle requests work better than warnings with a recidivist? Very often "your edit was not helpful" is far too much of an understatement. And the first dictionary definition of vandal is one who willingly defaces or destroys property, which is exactly what we're talking about - intellectual property. Seems like the right word to me. (The second refers to the Vandals, who, like the Huns and Visigoths, haven't been making much noise since the 5th century.) Tvoz |talk 07:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're only feeding the trolls! You're asking for evidence, but do you have evidence for your claim that calling people names works better? Experience with trolls points to the opposite. For some time I used "your edit was disruptive", but I felt that that only encourages those whose goal is to disrupt Wikipedia. — Sebastian 07:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above Sebastian, you are not calling them names, you are not saying you are a vandal you are saying what you did was vandalism, the target of the noun is not the person, but their contributions. I think we have assumed pretty good faith with the lvl1 warnings, but once you get to lvl4 lets not beat around the bush here, what they are doing is vandalism. ^Khukri 08:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your distinction holds water: It's only a superficial grammatical difference if you say somebody did X or call them an X-doer. But mine probably doesn't hold water, either. "Vandalism/vandal" is closer to a well defined term than to a slur, so I'm striking the "name calling" part. I don't see why you write "once you get to lvl4": {{uw-vand2}} already talks of vandalism. — Sebastian 08:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're worried about offending a group that's been dead for a thousand years because they happen to be the origin of an English word that that has nothing to do with the people anymore. Ethnic slur... that's just ridiculous, and purely an attempt at inciting... something. Ignore it. Don't even respond to me.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:47, 10/24/2007

Of course forget the Vandals which I have to hope was a joke, but sorry, Sebastian - I just don't see how we're calling names. "Your edit was not helpful and if you keep it up you may be blocked" doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? "Not helpful" is assuming a lot more good faith than some of these folks are entitled to. Tvoz |talk 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point; it doesn't fit with the warning. Also, your right that "name calling" was exaggerated, and I'm striking that part.

I still think we should write something that we don't have to wrap in weasel words like "Your edit can be seen as ...", but I guess I'm too tired to get involved in a discussion like this now - Good night! — Sebastian 08:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the look of disbelief I have over the fact that we are discussing political correctness as it pertains to a people who have not existed in over a millennia. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Should we notify the University of Idaho, which uses "Vandals" as their athletic team nickname? Shall we organize protest mobs to march in front of their stadium or arena? What does Jesse Jackson have to say about all this? Is there a way we can blame all this on Rush Limbaugh? Puh-LEEEEZE. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Puh-LEEEEZE., Realkyhick and Kralizec!, read the discussion first and then judge it. That's really something that annoys me here at Wikipedia: People who only read the headline or the first paragraph and then already feel they are smarter than everyone else, whose contributions they didn't even read. (I'm excluding myself here; I made some dumb mistakes in this discussion, but there were enough good contributions.) — Sebastian 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone able to produce evidence that the "Vandal" people are perpetrators of "bad edits". Surely the template MUST be changed from "Vandalism" to "Bad Edits". Canterberry 01:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually SebastianHelm, before I posted my above message, I had to read the entire thread twice because the first time I read it, I thought the entire thing was a WP:BJAODN refugee. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've read the whole thread repeatedly and I'm left with three possible explanations for what's going on here: 1. This is really a conversation about whether referring to people as vandals is inappropriate name-calling, and the whole "ethnic" thing has nothing to do with it. 2. Some people are really bewildered about the world and think that we're somehow insulting the Vandals, despite the fact that they stopped existing almost 1500 years ago. 3. This is a joke about the idea that someone could think that. So, which is it? I'm beginning to think that we're not all having the same conversation and it's all of them at once. Pinball22 13:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is "yes." But seriously, I agree with Khukri and think we should call a spade a spade. Taking my last vandalism revert and warning [2] as an example, while I have no doubt that in this politically correct era someone would take offense at being likened to a "vandal" ("oh noes, I have been impugned!"), "vandalism" really is the best word to describe that edit. If it quacks like a duck ... --Kralizec! (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-talkinarticle}}

Would anyone be opposed to me adding a line in the "please talk in the talk page" template that would instruct new users to click on the "discussion" tap at the top of their screens? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that the link to Wikipedia:Talk page that's already there would be sufficient, but I see no harm in being more explicit.--Kubigula (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Using templates

Is the number 1 supposed to show up at the beginning on all these? Seems out of place when warning them. --Xiahou 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read here for details. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Organizing this page

Could we break this page down a little more so that the templates get their own subsections for each violation type, similar to what has been done for blocks at the bottom of the page? For instance, create subsections for: Vandalism, Blanking, Testing, User pages, Informational error, Manual of style, Assume good faith, No personal attacks, Defamatory content, Joking, Biographical accuracy, Neutral point of view, Ownership of articles (typo in level two template), Spam links, Copright infringement, Creating articles, 3RR, Images, Censorship, Unsourced content, and Moving articles. It's hard to grab the right template when in a hurry to let an editor know that their current action is not 100% acceptable according to Wiki standards. ZueJay^talk 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's a good idea. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to do it unles everyone agrees. Any other Yay's OR Nay's? -- Nerketur 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bring it up on WT:UTM you'll get more opinion there, but I don't see why not. ^{Khukri -} 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to someone for following up on this request. It is so much easier to use. I lost track of this over the last couple weeks while on wikibreak. Thanks for following thru/up. There are templates here I didn't know we had! ZueJay^talk 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Self revert template

Could we get a template for self revert tests? WilliamKF 04:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There already is, {{uw-selfrevert|thanks for reverting your own tests}}. It's a fairly busy page but almost everything we have is listed here WP:UTM. Regards, ^Khukri 11:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I added this to the project page. WilliamKF 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your change as you added it to the multi-level warnings page, for warnings that have incremental levels. It needs to be added to the single level warnings. As you look through it you'll see that the warnings aren't harmonised and do not have the same look and tidyness that the multi level warnings do. I'm back from wikibreak tomorrow and next week I intend to attack the second part of WP:UW harmonisation program. If you look here you'll see most of the templates that weren't covered by the original program and the recommended actions. Cheers ^Khukri 09:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And Khukri has put it on the single level page too already. Thanks. WilliamKF 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

sequence

Is there any rationale behind the location of the various items--they seem in no particular order. If no one has a better idea, I'm going to group them as article/edit/behavior/misc

Attacking the person in his biography, not the editor.

I've experienced an edit in a biography which the editor attacked the person in the biography not an editor, I only found here the {{subst:uw-npa1|Article}} template so I used the {{subst:uw-biog1|Article}} instead. Why isn't there such a template for attacking a person in his own biography ???

Depends on what is being written, but sound like the {{uw-defam1}} series could be used here. ^Khukri 11:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving the block templates was a bad idea

I know I used this page as a reference tab in my browser when policing pages, now I have to open two... and I don't see a practical reason. --Bobak 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Previously, we had two pages:

page 1	page 2
multi-level warning templates block templates meta-templates	single-level warning and notice templates

That arrangement was illogical. Either--

1. we create a details page with all user warning and block templates
2. we give each category its own page (present solution); or
3. we organize the pages based on a logical classification (such as one page for both multi- and single- level warnings/notices, and another page for blocks).

I would be pleased to assist in any of these solutions. Convenience should be the next consideration, so we should go with whichever solution is the most convenient. Bsherr 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw the addition of a link to the blocking templates page placed at the bottom of this page. I think that's a fine temporary measure. My next project will be to place a "contents box" of links to all the template pages at the top of each page. Bsherr 20:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC) ==NOR==- NOR was added. what is the consensus that the addition of NOR would in the absence of other considerations warrant a block? DGG (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-notyours3}}?

What is the right template to use for someone who maliciously edits other people's comments (including warnings) on their userpage? {{notyours}} assumes the edits were for "clarity, spelling or grammar", the {{uw-tpv1}} series mentions deleting comments which on your own user talk page is frowned upon but not strictly against policy... is there anything that covers this? - ∅ (∅), 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-tpv2}}? You can easily add any clarification after the template. — Sebastian 02:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the tpv series works fine. They say delete or edit, so they are broad enough to cover this situation.--Kubigula (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

original research?

I just noticed that there is currently not a warning series for people adding original research to articles. I'd be interested in collaborating on creating a series analogous to the NPOV series.Ngchen 15:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Nor}} and {{Nor2}} are out there, though they were never converted to the new format. Personally, I don't think a separate series for NOR is necessary. The "unsourced" template series (i.e. {{uw-unsor1}} etc) works pretty well in this situation. I recognize that there is a difference between what is original research and what is simply unsourced , but I don't think the distinction needs to be laid out in a warning template. Alternately, I wouldn't oppose adding a bit to the "unsourced" template to cover NOR as well.--Kubigula (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Kubigula`s suggestion of {{uw-unsourced1}}, I have also found {{uw-biog1}} to be useful in some similar situations. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for what?

I appreciate the soft approach and the hope that the urge to vandalize may be turned into the urge to contribute to building an encyclopedia, but in many cases the "test" is clear-cut vandalism, and then the "thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia", in which we are thanking them for the very act of vandalizing Wikipedia, sounds ironic rather than friendly. What about "thank you for your interest in Wikipedia"?  --Lambiam 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

One editor's garbage is another editor's Picasso. If you feel that an edit really was vandalism rather that a test, use a {{uw-vandalism1}} warning rather than a {{uw-test1}}. Personally, for a first edit issue, I generally use whichever warning is most appropriate for the situation, but the "Big Five" ({{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-error1}}, {{uw-test1}},{{uw-unsourced1}}, and {{uw-vandalism1}}) normally work quite well for me 95% or more of the time. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"User reported" templates

I recently came across Template:Vandrep, which I hadn't previously noticed because it isn't listed on our page here. Has there been any thought to adding a "fifth level" (and I use that phrase in quotes because this class of templates isn't so much a warning as a notification) that includes this class of templates, which notify users that they have been reported to be blocked. These templates seem to me to serve a useful purpose in that they notify users of exactly what action resulted in their being reported. Thoughts? Bsherr 16:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there used to be a similar non-uw template, but it was deleted after much discussion. Anomie 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was interesting reading. The discussion made some good points. Even though the user doesn't find out what the block is for, I think the point made in the discussion that it is counterproductive to have such a message and a failure to produce administrator action is compelling. I may be inspired to TfD that template. Bsherr 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The blocking notice will tell them why they are being blocked (vandalism, spam etc), though perhaps not which edit broke the camels back. I think that's sufficient as they are typically being blocked for a pattern of disruptive editing rather than for any specific edit. I'd support a TfD for the same reasons as in the prior discussion.--Kubigula (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Want to report back here that I did a TfD on the template, and had a nice chat with its author, who was in my shoes asking this question just a few weeks ago. But he's a more technical guy and decided to build the template, as opposed to me, who just finds the stuff and asks lots of questions. So I showed him the discussion threads you shared with me, and we had another convert. Thanks. Bsherr 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Summary" table of warnings

Would there be support for deleting the summary table of warnings that appears before the complete list? I suggest it because the first three lines in the summary table are exactly the same as the first three lines in the complete table. The only other entry in the summary table is for the spam links templates, which in the complete table appears just a few lines below the top three. Deleting the summary table would cut a header level, and reduce the length of the page (and reduce the size of the page by 3KB). I think the redundancy may be initially confusing to new viewers, especially since the first three lines of each are repeats. I'll hang on for comments before "being bold." Warm regards. Bsherr 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the point of the top four is to hit the highlights so that someone looking doesn't get put off by the number of templates. However, I personally agree that it's a bit repetitive given that the main ones are first on the larger list anyway. So, I'd support your notion.--Kubigula (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me. Perhaps the current duplicated setup is because the warnings used to be ordered alphabetically (so {{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-test1}}, and {{uw-vandalism1}} were not at the top of their category like they are now). --Kralizec! (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that explanation is likely. Since the table is [now] organized into categories, alphabetizing isn't going to move any one template down too far on the list to be readily seen. Since I've heard from you both, our main freeholders on this page, I'm gonna go ahead! Bsherr 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable persons / Vanity Spam

What would be the most appropriate warning template for users who add clearly non-notable persons (most likely their own name) to Wikipedia articles. I'm quite surprised that I was unable to find any vandalism templates dedicated to this incredibly common occurrence, excessively prevalent in lists of "Notable residents" from most cities/towns and lists of "Notable alumni" from schools of every level.

If no such template exists then I'd like to strongly suggest such a template be added because vanity spam (I know that phrase is discouraged but I'm using it for simplicity since I'm not targeting any particular individual) is inclusive of breaking so many different Wikipedia guidelines. I would not be totally wrong to add all of the following templates to a vanity spammer's usertalk page, each time they do it:

• Vandalism (too general)
• Lack of Notablility (this template doesn't really exist but it should.)
• Creating autobiographies (this template exists but is primarily intended for articles rather than content bits, but it still applies)
• Conflict of Interest
• Not adhering to neutral point of view
• Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion
• Addition of unsourced material without proper citations
• Creating hoaxes

Although I wouldn't necessarily be wrong to add all of those templates, that would be quite excessive, which is why I'm requesting a vanity spam warning template should be created and implemented that more appropriately addresses this common form of vandalism. --Fife Club 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since these sorts of pages are normally speedy deletion candidates via A7, I normally let {{nn-warn}} do the talking for me. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean for when somebody creates a whole vanity article. I meant when somebody adds their own name (or anybody's non-notable name) to a legitimate article. Among many examples, an article on a city that has has a section for notable residents, and some vandal adds their own name to that list, likely with a red non-link. Or there's a legitimate article on a particular high school, and some jerk keeps putting his own name in the article as a notable alumnus (including "Class of 2009", proving he/she is not notable) and keeps putting it back in after a dozen reverts. So I was talking about needing a template for those who add vanity spam content to existing legitimate articles, which I think is a very common occurrence. --Fife Club 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Whooops, sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that we do not really have any warnings that address this sort of issue directly. In the past I have used either {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-unsourced1}} and escalated from there if the editor was persistent in re-adding. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Use Template:Nn-test. It's a single-level template, I think, and it corresponds to about a level one. Maybe extending it out to 4 levels would be a project? Bsherr 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good one. Thanks. I just added it to my cheat sheet. However I didn't notice your suggested template before I had already just created my own personal "vanity spam templates" on my user page. They're not real templates (just a bunch of code) and they're currently just intended for me to easily copy and paste, but what do you think of these message templates? (You should have no problem finding them on the page.)

--Fife Club 22:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They're graphically appealing, which is always nice to see. I love the use of icons, which NN-test doesn't have. What follows is some criticism, but I want to emphasize how much I respect the effort, and the interest!

It looks like the templates combine COI and NN concerns. I'm not sure that's the best way to go. Assume a situation where a trivial name is added to a notable residents section. COI is hard to be sure of, because we often don't know for sure whether the name added is that of the editor or not. More often, we'll know that it's NN per se, or that it's NN by reason of no context. COI and NN are both grounds to revert the edit and warn the editor, but I propose that there's no need to cite both when just one will do, and I'd rather cite the one that I'm more sure of.

Example 1: if I received a combined COI/NN template message for just a NN transgression, I might think it wrongly given because I didn't commit a COI transgression. Example 2: if I received a combined COI/NN template message because the reverter was 100% sure of NN and 50% sure of COI, but I the original editor think there's no COI, I again might consider the template wrongly given, and I don't learn the NN lesson.

I also still prefer the language in Template:Nn-test because it applies not just to names of people, but to other NN contributions, like bands, clubs, companies, etc. I think it might be better to have the versitility.

That being said, I think NN-test is an old template, from the old system, because it has the test(n) style, and refers to level 5 (which now does not exist) in the documentation. It also doesn't have the new "templatenotice" function in it. If we adopt it for this purpose, it will have to be updated.

But NN-test still doesn't solve the COI issue. You mentioned in your original post a COI template. Is there one? You also mentioned the autobiography notice template. I dislike this template, because it starts out with wording suggesting it might be used for all autobiographical edits, but then includes a chunk that's specific to whole article autobiography, mentioning AfD, etc. If someone simply makes an self-referencing edit, rather than a whole article, the template seems about 50% irrelevant. And as described above, the more irrelevant the template is to the transgression, the more likely the recipient will ignore it or assume it was given in error. I don't think NPOV quite covers it. Adding references to oneself isn't the same as personal analysis or commentary. So, there's a second project, maybe? Bsherr 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I made those two primarily based on what I keep finding in my situations. I guess it's because I have so many towns and cities in my watch list. What you use totally depends on the specific situation, which may not always be obvious. In any case, my thoughts on the first one were as a first offense / maybe they didn't know / here's more information template. It also includes the FYI just in case that was their own name. The second template is totally direct and only for blatant vandalism and repeat offenders. But those were designed just with me in mind. I'd love it if an official template were added that addressed the issue(s). Maybe you're right that it should be two separate templates - one for NN (but specific to people), and another for suspected cased where they are adding their own name. I'd love to see it, and I'll ditch my homemade stuff then.  :) --Fife Club 03:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like either {{nn-test}} or your templates, because all of them misapply Wikipedia:Notability: Wikipedia:Notability applies to article topics, not article content. I don't know that there really are any guidelines on who should be in a "list of notable residents" section, but that would be the guideline to refer to. I'll have to think about this for a while to suggest better wording, though; sorry I can't be more help. Also, BTW, don't edit {{nn-test}} to match the new style lest you bring the wrath of the anti-new-style cabal (TINC) ;) Anomie 12:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that's a good point. I was so focused on the right template, I missed the policy argument. Ok, my backup position--as it applies to non-notable people, violates WP:BLP; as it applies to other non-notable "proper nouns", WP:NOT#DIR. The policy proscribing NN items in lists of notable "proper nouns" is surely found in the penumbra of the two aforementioned policies. Now we just need a template that says that... We can build it, we have the technology. We have the capacity to build the world's first WP:BLP/NOT#DIR template. NN-test will be that template. Better than it was before. Better, stronger, substituted. As for the anti-new-style cabal-- we're a project; do they have their own userbox?

I'm having a little fun here, but I do seriously believe BLP and NOT#DIR can cover this issue. Bsherr 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Definately WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO, and while WP:BLP applies I'm not so sure it should be mentioned from a WP:BEANS perspective—since so many of these lists are unsourced, it's a great opportunity for someone to be pointy and misinterpret the meaning of "contentious". WP:TRIVIA might also apply, since these sort of things are rather trivial. There's also an argument to be made that a non-wikt:notable person is not relevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the topic of the article (WP:5 if there isn't a better policy/guideline). Is it time for my AAAAA meeting yet? Anomie 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox colors

Do we have any warning templates for vandals who change infobox colors? It seems to be a new fad that I've been seeing. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS includes a section on infoboxes. If the edits are against the guidelines of the MOS, use the MOS series of warnings. If they're not counter to MOS, I think it might be difficult to characterize the changes as vandalism as opposed to a legitimate difference of opinion over appearance of the infobox (we have to assume good faith, even if the edits test the limits of that assumption). If it's continuing, you can run the count on 3RR. Bsherr 01:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

I think the welcoming templates on this page should be better highlighted. It seems to me that if a new user does something bad he is immediately jumped on, but if a new user does something good he is ignored. BradMajors 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

While I understand and generally agree with what you are saying, I admit that I almost never use the welcome templates on this page. The most I ever do is follow the link to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would support going at it with less in the way of examples, more in the way of guidance. We currently just provide a list of welcome templates, and our list is inferior to that of the welcoming committee. I think a good change would be to cut down the examples and link directly to the welcoming committee page, and in the same space give guidance for using the templates. I suggest a statement such as "Welcome templates provide instruction on and links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines that the newest users may be unfamiliar with, and may be used to supplement appropriate user warning template messages." Bsherr 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"M"inor?

Is there a reason why only the "m" in "minor" is in bold in Template:Uw-minor? -- HiEv 03:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an homage to the bold lower-case "m" denoting minor edits in page histories. Bsherr 04:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah! It looked like a mistake of some sort, but since it had survived several edits I thought that there might be a reason for it. Thanks for the explanation. -- HiEv 04:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new user warning template

I've had quite a few occasions where I've noticed a user leaving a message for another user on their userpage, rather than their talk page. Going in and moving the message across doesn't take much time, but then writing out the usual "By the way you accidentally left your message on the userpage rather than the talk page, I've moved it across for you, watch out for that in the future" message on the user's talk page takes up the time.

I've had a look through Category:User warning templates, and whilst I can see a template for warning someone about leaving talk in articlespace, I can't see that there's a similar warning about leaving talk on userspace, not user talk space.

I've come up with the template (based on one of the other warnings) which is currently in my Sandbox at User:Gilesbennett/Sandbox - the versions shown either include a link to the specific user's pages in question (where that detail is inserted as part of the template usage) or doesn't (if left blank).

My question is (i) have I just reinvented the wheel, and if so, where's the wheel? And (ii) if I think this is a sensible template to include in Category:User warning templates, do I just create the template in templatespace and add the appropriate category tag to it?

Thanks in advance for any comments. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 16:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Template:uw-coi

I've rewritten this, for the following reasons:

1. The template is designed to be used to guide likely COI editors. So it needs to clearly do so. But when I read it, the previous version probably didn't in fact guide them all that well.
2. It now states specifically - 1/ the core general policies applicable to a COI issue, 2/ the core requirements of WP:COI and practical advice what to do, and 3/ further resources. Plus a friendly start and end.
3. It's a lot more supportive and less "BITEy", whilst also being far clearer as to what they need to know, where they stand, and what we need of them.

I've edited this as a BRD rewrite, since the version I saw here before just didn't really seem to be as helpful as it could be (I'm using it on someone's talk page and it just wasn't a message I'd have wanted to leave anybody, which defeats the whole aim of a user-warn template).

I hope nobody will object but as with all BRD's, if anyone does, please don;t take offence, just revert, move it here, explain why, discuss -- and let me know so I can contribute.

But I hope folks will like it, and see it as a good improvement.

Old: [3], new: [4].

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (talk • contribs)

I appreciate the comprehensiveness of the template and the motivation for it, but I'm concerned about the length of the template. (It's much longer than the typical warning templates!)

As far as I know, we don't have a guideline for the content (as distinguished from the design) of user warning templatees (but there really ought to one). There is pattern: templates contain a concise description of what was wrong, and wikilinks to the complete policy/guideline and how to conform edits to it.

I'm not aware of any user warning template that itself includes recommendations for conforming to the policy/guideline, except the line in some warnings reminding users to conduct test edits in a sandbox, or to generally edit constructively. Even allowing that, the recommendation is no more than one sentence. I suspect the reason for this is that it is very difficult to completely address the topic of recommendations to conform in such a small space (and that we assume at least some users just need the warning, not the reeducation!). I recognize a good attempt to do so in this template, but I'm not sure it's the best course of action.

I don't often talk about server storage (We do what we want and size be darned, right?)...but I'm going to talk about server storage. It's simply more efficient to provide a link to a policy/guideline than it is to include it in the template and post it each time on a user talk page. The latter approach will consume more resources.

I'm also concerned with the inclusion of "general content policies" in the template. I've mentioned in a past thread the concept of ensuring that our UW templates are as versatile as possible. I would be shy to use this template with a more seasoned user because it mentions the general policies, which could seem patronizing or suggest the warning is for more than COI (such as suggesting the user isn't following the general policies). We have a wide variety of welcome templates (which we were just asked to do more to promote) that explain the basic Wikipedia policies. I'd prefer having the option of pairing a welcome template with a more limited COI warning than having a COI warning that combines both.

I appreciate the hard work that went into editing the template. I wish I had an opportunity to comment on it before or during its revision. Visually, it looks great. I hope we can have a good discussion about the right amount of content to make it most effective. Warm regards. Bsherr 23:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about server space, but most people on the receiving end of that template will have their eyes glaze over at the sight of that huge block of text. Even the previous version IMO might be a bit large, but at least justifiable. A UW warning isn't meant to take the place of a welcome template in pointing a new editor to all the policies and guidelines they need to get started, it just points out that something specific was wrong and links to the specific places that explain the appropriate practices.

If I were to rewrite it (starting from the old version), I'd probably trim back the bulleted list and mention that proposing edits on the talk page for others to implement is a good way to avoid COI (if it works). I'd aim for no more on-screen lines than the current version uses, and less would be better. Anomie 02:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is there a warning message for users (vandal IP addresses and accounts) who blank their user talk pages (supposedly already full of warning messages)? The Chronic 05:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:UW/FAQ#How about creating a user warning template.... Anomie 05:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While that standard may be reasonable for user account talk pages, since they "own" their user talk page, is it also reasonable for IP address user talk pages? Technically the person using that IP address doesn't own it in the same way that they could own an account, so might that kind of template be acceptable if only used on IP addresses' user talk pages? Keep in mind that blanking an IP addresses' user talk page could remove other information from the page that might be important to other users of that IP address or other Wikipedia users. -- HiEv 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Uw-unsourced1

I'm curious why the BLP verbiage was incorporated into this template. When BLP is not involved, the warning message appears to be off-topic, since BLP is so strongly emphasized. I would suggest putting this one back to the way it was. BLP has its own set of warning templates and, if anything, these could more simply read "Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, any statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you." Or, alternatively, give Uw-unsor1 an "opt out" parameter, whereby the BLP portion is omitted if and only if the parameter is set (e.g. blp="no"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

uw-npov2 additional text

Is the optional third paramter ("Additional Text" that replaces the thank you message) broken? See this warning for example (view page source to see hidden msg). /Blaxthos 04:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just checked it, and it appears that the second parameter does not take kindly to embedding a URL like this [http://blahblah]. I don't know if this is true for all the template messages though. BTW, the template should have been subst'ed (but a bot will fix that in short order.)Ngchen 04:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has nothing to do with [http://blahblah]; it's the '=' later in the URL that is screwing it up. This is a misfeature in MediaWiki's template parsing and affects all templates, not just this one. The workaround is to specify the numbered parameter explicitly, e.g. {{uw-npov2|Fox Business Network|2=See [http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Fox_Business_Network&diff=171436425&oldid=171330629 this edit] for reference.}}. Anomie 12:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-biog2}}

The template, when substituted, currently says the following:

Please do not add unreferenced or controversial information about living persons to Wikipedia articles. Thank you.

Now, there's nothing wrong with controversial information, as long as it's sourced. I think that the template should reflect that. Here's my proposed wording:

Please do not add unreferenced information about living persons to Wikipedia articles, especially if controversial. Thank you.

Any opinions? Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Puchiko. OTOH, there might be issues with marginal sources, so maybe it should read "... do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information ..."Ngchen (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Like this?
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information about living persons to Wikipedia articles, especially if controversial. Thank you.
I'll use the {{Editprotected}} on this, if there are no objections. Puchiko (Talk-email) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Go for it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose for the {{uw-biog2}} to be changed to "Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information about living persons to Wikipedia articles, especially if controversial. Thank you." per above discussion. Puchiko (Talk-email) 04:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The template is only semi-protected, so you can make the edit. You should get the credit :).--Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I just assumed that a high risk template would be fully protected. I really should get more sleep :) Anyways, I changed it, and hope I haven't messed anything up (my first edit in the template namespace). Could you look over it, please? Puchiko (Talk-email) 04:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was fine - except that you took out the wikilinks to WP:RS and WP:BLP. However, I did also tweak the sentence structure a bit. I believe we'd prefer the "especially if controversial" bit to pertain to the information, not to the article. Makes sense either way, so correct me if I'm wrong.--Kubigula (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-syn1}} - {{uw-syn4}}

Would anyone object to creating a set of warning templates specifically for violation of WP:SYN? This is a common policy violation among POV editors and none of the standard warnings exactly fit. When a standard warning such as {{uw-unsor1}} is used, editors often object that yes they have provided sources etc. and WP:SYN then needs to be explained from scratch. A template notice that directly addresses this specific issue would provide clarity and save time and difficulties. If this is a good idea, any suggestions regarding wording or help with construction would be appreciated. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it. FWIW, you might want to make it so that they encompass the general rule against OR, with a blurb explain SYN. Ngchen (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Ngchen. I actually came here the other day hoping there was a template for WP:NOR and came away disappointed. A clause about SYN would fit right in. ··coelacan 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there appears to be some support for having NOR specific templates. There are actually a couple of NOR templates (specifically, {{nor}} and {{nor2}}) that were never converted to the uw format. My suggestion is to use and modify those templates and include a clause about SYN. I think a level 1 and level 2 warning should be enough. After that, you can escalate to {{uw-unsor3}} (which covers OR) and/or {{uw-generic4}}.--Kubigula (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidance on signatures

This would be a good place to point out to novices (like me!) that you should use a signature when warning a user. (At least, I believe that's what I'm supposed to do, from reading other pages.) If I were more certain of that, I'd even be bold and edit the article myself. Sadly, no. JayLevitt 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I originally posted the above on 10/20, but it received no feedback, and was swept into the archives by MishaBot. Is it inappropriate for me to be reposting it? If so, sorry. If there's a better place to post it, please let me know. And if there's a way to suggest that bots attempt to distinguish between new sections that have received answers and subsequently died off, vs. old sections that are still awaiting someone's attention, please consider this a suggestion for making that distinction... -- JayLevitt (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're fine. This is the right place to bring it up, but readership here can be sparse so some questions go unanswered. (As for the suggestion about archive bots, you might raise it at WP:VPT.) You should go ahead and be bold here, adding to the instructions where you see fit a short reminder to use signatures. Link the text to Wikipedia:Signatures. ··coelacan 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd go as far as to suggest that it's a mistake to have the user warning documentation at WP:UW rather than here. The reason for it, I presume, is that the use and design documentation are consolidated. Thoughts on a remedy? Bsherr (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording of {{uw-tilde}}

Would it not be clearer for new editors, particularly in terms of highlighting its relevance to anons, if "name" was replaced with "user name or IP address"? Adrian M. H. 00:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved^Khukri 13:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-nor1}} through {{uw-nor4}}

I just created a series of templates addressing original research, as well as novel syntheses. I will be requesting semi-protection for the new templates, as I'm currently not an administrator. I'll then see what redirects, if any, need to be created, and will be integrating the template into our warning series.Ngchen (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging talk pages from the "(x-level) XXX templates" subpages into here

Discussions about user warning and block templates seem better addressed together than separately, and the volume of talk hasn't been substantial enough to warrant dividing the discussion, so I'm proposing that the talk pages for each of the "[x-level] XXX templates" subpages be redirected to this page. I will post merge messages on each page. Thoughts? Bsherr 16:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. All the individual template talk pages already redirect here.--Kubigula (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I completed the merge today. Strangely, all of the talk pages I named had been deleted. Did anyone notice how that happened? I was hoping to archive their content here. Bsherr (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I screwed it up. I made the corrections, and it should be right this time. Merge completed, redirects installed. Bsherr (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Uw-lblock‎

I suggest that there should be a template for indefinitely blocked users for making legal threats. This template (Template:Uw-lblock) is for temporary blocked users and what if someone is indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats? I believe that there should also be a legal threat block template for indefinitely blocked users as well. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 15:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This came up earlier today. Shouldn't this template default to "indefinitely," and have "temporarily" as the option? (In the meantime: Use the "indef=yes" parameter so the template will indicate an indefinite block.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy on legal threats is to block indefinitely, and then lift the block only when the user rescinds the legal threat. Could somebody with parser skillz implement Gyrofrog's suggestion? ··coelacan 21:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Where do I sign the work order?  ;-) The new parameter to make it temporary is "temp=yes". My long-term project will be to work on the documentation for block templates. For example, the template documentation doesn't say "sig=~~~~" signs templates. Bsherr (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The other blocks I think are sig=y. ^Khukri 08:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that may very well be the case. Sig=~~~~ always worked for me, but I wonder if sig="anything" would put the signature there. Hah, this is why we need clear documentation. I'm going to sandbox this to check it out for myself and report back. Thanks for the heads-up! Bsherr (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sig=?

Can someone add documentation to {{uw-block1}} to show the proper usage of the sig parameter? The first few times I used it I added my signature after the template and manually then placed it inside. Seeing that there was some hidden parameter for placing it automatically, I looked for usage documentation but it wasn't on the template page. I'm not sure sure how to use it properly, so I can't add the information myself. The weird thing is that it doesn't work if you add "|sig" or "|sig=" but you don't need to place "|sig=your correct name" which would seem logical; rather "|sig=any character including nonsense" works, i.e. {{subst:uw-block|time=forever and a day|reason=climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman|sig=kjflkajkj}} formats perfectly to my signature at the end (??).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To activate auto-signing in any of the {{uw-block}} series, the parser is looking for "|sig=<anything>" at the end. I updated the template's documentation to clarify the use of this feature. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was sure I would learn there was some reason my experiment results weren't correct but apparently they are. I can't think of any reason for such redundant complexity to the parameter which leaves in its wake a cluttered hidden comment with whatever nonsense text you use—just making it function with "sig" or "s" instead is logical. Is this an artifact of a technical limitation?—-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To pass on the baton.

As most of you are aware I've not been looking after the user warnings for a couple of months now. So it's time to pass the baton on, and I will be removing them from my watch list. I've created a page here which you/someone can use to copy the full set of uw- warnings into your raw watchlist. Though I won't be keeping an eye on the warnings, I will still be here and at WP:UW (which I think someone should merge here now). All the best ^Khukri 11:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied! Thanks for all of your hard work on this project. It is greatly appreciated! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To have some backup, I watchlisted them too. As a bonus, I semi-protected a couple that got missed.--Kubigula (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I may as well make it three, although I'll be watching things based on Special:Recentchangeslinked rather than cluttering my watchlist. Anomie⚔ 05:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

Is there a template for edits that just don't make sense, whether in error or just bad english? --Neon white (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the editor in question new to Wikipedia? If so, {{uw-english}} may be appropriate for incomprehensible talk page messages, with either {{uw-error1}} or the generic {{uw-test1}} for indecipherable article edits. If the editor is not new, an individualized, personal message always works better than a template. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If the edit is the creation of an article, there's {{nonsensepage}} and for deleting admins, {{nonsense-warn-deletion}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

None of those really fitted what i wanted to say. It was in english and i believe the edits were a genuine attempt to improve an article but i think they had just made an unnoticed mistake or typo that left the sentence hard to make sense of. What i wanted was to put something on the talk page that says something like maybe you should reassess what you wrote again as it doesn't appear to make sense in it's current form giving them the opportunity to address the issue rather than just have what could be worthwhile info removed. --Neon white (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You want {{SpellCheck}}, it runs the gamut on your concerns. --12 Noon 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that does the trick. --Neon white (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

uw-2redirect

{{subst:uw-2redirect}}

Is this still needed? Special:DoubleRedirects says that a bot fixes most double redirects now. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 04:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Double redirects#Is this done automatically?, double redirects are still something of an issue. Seems to me that editors should still try to clean up double redirects, and therefore that the template has value.--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:uw-bv

Hi. What exactly qualifies for "Blatant vandalism" {{subst:uw-bv}}? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Determining the "severity" of vandalism is often in the eye of the beholder. Some might consider this or perhaps this, but it is often a judgment call. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As Kralizec says, it's a judgment call. I personally reserve bv for situations where the vandalism is hateful - racist, misogynistic etc.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And what's the intended difference between this and {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a complete answer to your question, but uw-bv assumes less experience than 4im - there's much more information and policy in the bv template. I have used uw-bv when I have reason to think a user is new and needs more information, but their vandalism is especially offensive and thus deserving of a stronger warning. Kubigula's examples are good ones, and I also use bv for attack vandalism. Level 4im seems more appropriate for someone who obviously knows their way around, but has either vandalized a lot without being warned, or is committing vandalism of an especially sneaky nature. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with what Natalie said, though I find the examples a bit lame for bv warnings. Looking through my own edits, the last bv warning I gave was for [5], but I also use them for vandals who are on a blatant spree and haven't yet been warned, just to get their attention. I think the bv warning means the vandal may be blocked if they vandalise again, and the 4im warning means they will be blocked if they vandalise again. I will quite often follow a bv warning with a level 3 or 4 warning (or both, or even a lower level warning). I tend to use the 4im warning for vandals whose next edit is entirely predictable. But I think the real difference between the two, as Natalie suggests, is in the level of intent. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the difference was the blatantwarning was deprecated, but it seems to have been added again (or perhaps I allways was wrong. ). But appart from that, I tend to behave as if people has gotten a uw-vandalism4im if I find a Blatant vandalism-warning. I think the blatanwarning serves good if you find someone with several vandal-edits, but no warnings. Greswik 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)-

TfD nomination of Template:TestTemplates

Template:TestTemplates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible flaw in level 3 warning

The warning says "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.". However, only adminstrator can block. Therefore, if an editor places such warning, they cannot place the block themselves. The request may be denied. Is this a hollow threat? Or original research (just a joke)? I am reluctant to use level 3 warnings because I cannot block others.

How about possible alternate wordings such as:
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, steps will be taken to block you from editing.

This a non-admin can say. The steps include AIV. The wording does not guarantee that the person will be blocked but is clear enough. Archtransit (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of being concise, I am thinking that the original is OK. The reason is that in practice, those who continue to vandalize past level 3 get a level 4 warning, and if it happens again get reported to the administrators noticeboard. When such a report is made, inevitably the user gets blocked within an hour.Ngchen (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

While I understand this concern, I cannot say that I share it. The level three warnings do not say that I am going to block you; they merely state that if you continue to vandalize, you will be blocked (by someone). Likewise, speaking as editors "inside" the warning process, we who report level four violations may not be the admins levying the blocks, but we are the people initiating the investigation that leads to a block via our reports to WP:AIV, WP:ANI, etc. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to see a similar discussion to the wording of level three warnings here. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Substitution failures

Something in the substitution code is failing in the Template:Uw-vandalism1 series. The "subst if" commands are still in the template even after being substituted on user pages. Would someone who understands the wikicode please look into fixing it? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Typing {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article|And this is some extra text for the subst if}}, gave

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Article, did not appear to be 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. And this is some extra text for the subst if.

Looks OK to me, can you explain exactly what you were doing or give an example please. ^Khukri 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Template:Minor into Template:Uw-minor?

Is there a reason for having both {{Minor}} and {{Uw-minor}} templates? I think it looks like the first one should be merged into the second one. I considered marking the pages with merge tags, but I didn't want to risk screwing up the templates or missing the reason for having two separate templates. Thanks. -- HiEv 03:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:minor is the old (pre-uw) version. My understanding is that some people prefer the older versions, though I'm not sure how strong that sentiment still is. There's really no need to merge. I'd personally support a redirect, though I'm biased in that I like the uw system.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Uw-delete2 vs WP:V.

Can we change "Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia." to "Please do not delete reliably sourced content from pages on Wikipedia."? WP:V and all that. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-01t22:20z

Done.Ngchen 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a good change. We don't want people deleting any large chunks of content without explanation. If they are deleting the content because it's unsourced and they think it's incorrect, that's fine, but we still want them to explain this in the edit summary. Otherwise it just looks like vandalism. Even unsourced content (assuming it's correct) has value to the project, and we don't want people deleting it.--Kubigula (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Then would "Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining why" work better? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - that's a definite improvement, in my opinion.--Kubigula (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-tweaked {{uw-delete2}} along the lines suggested by Damian Yerrick. Anyone have concerns with this version?--Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS needs to be in there - this template is being used to give warnings for deleting unsourced fancruft. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-02t19:28z

I don't see a problem here. If you want to remove unverifiable fancruft, then say so in the edit summary. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My preference is to not add an explicit mention of WP:RS to the template. While we all know from the official verifiability policy that "any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed," I fear that this change would have a chilling effect on both the usage of the template and reverts of un-explained deletions. This is largely because less-experienced editors may incorrectly presume that {{uw-delete2}} is only good for cases where sourced material was removed, and as Kubigula indicated, unsourced content (I prefer to call it "not-yet sourced") does have value to the project. Leaving WP:RS off the template gives us a lot of flexibility while still effectively getting the point across to the content-deleting editor. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That wording just doesnt work at all. What if an editor gives a completely invalid reason for removing something? It's just going to make people think 'as long as i give a reason i can remove what a like' --Neon white (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If a user has started giving obviously invalid reasons for removing content in the edit summary, you can use a template related to the reasons or, better yet, explain to the user in your own words why the reasons are invalid. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(dedenting) And if you must use a template, try {{subst:uw-wrongsummary}}. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We should take the opportunity with this template to warn deleters against following up with bogus edit summaries. Phrasing in that first sentence would be better as "... without providing a meaningful explanation of the reason for the removal in the edit summary." {{subst:uw-wrongsummary}} is useful, but it lacks escalating levels of warning. A progressive 1-2-3-4-im warning system supports effective countervandalism. Dl2000 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If "deleters" and other malicious editors do make up false edit summaries, it would probably be better to simply use the generic warnings for vandalism or blanking or whatever they hid under the false edit summary. We don't need a progressive warning system for every single warning we have. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

uw-joke[1-2]

On {{uw-joke1}} it might be an idea to add a reference to Uncyclopedia to these to help distract vandals and give them a place where their edits actually might be perceived as productive. It's not part of the Wikimedia non-profit project, but since it's Wikia, I figure it's close enough since it's Jimbo's brainchild and they're one of our largest supporters

I reason that it might help reduce the WP:BEANS effect and make the best of the situation, since it gives involves a perceived choice on the part of the vandal: either his joke instantaneously gets deleted and he gets more cold warnings and a block, or it gets read by a bunch of people, laughed at with applause, and maybe even featured on their main page. :P The latter choice is likely what the vandal was after in the first place anyway (per WP:DENY and WP:BJAODN); so, if we give them the option of getting exactly what they wanted, they might be less inclined to persist in their vandalism. Any thoughts? --slakr^\ talk / 06:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like one of those old-timers who dredges up old conversations, we did have a discussion on this point earlier this year. Joke1 used to include a link to BJOADN, then Uncyclopedia, but there were valid objections to both. The archived discussion (under uw-joke1) is atWikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 7#All uw- templates are now redirected here.--Kubigula (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

uw-advert2

Shouldn't this say "promotional" rather than "commercial" material? It's not only commercial stuff that gets spammed on Wikipedia, and there doesn't seem to be any other series of warnings that applies to promotional additions. - ∅ (∅), 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be better.--Kubigula (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Create an account, please!

Does anyone want to create a template whereby it can be placed on anonymous IP's talk-pages informing them about the benefits of creating an account? This is assuming, of course, that such anonymous editors are making regular contributions to certain article(s) and it is obvious that they are serious-ish editors. So it may be helpful to let them know about the benefits of creating an account and the template can direct them to the appropriate WP page that deals with it. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Like {{welcome-anon}} ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several welcome template that fit the purpose: See Template:Welc-anon, Template:AnonymousWelcome, and Template:Welcome-anon-vandal. Hope that helps. --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. Ekantik ^talk 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-balkans}}

guys, this is something I forgot to bring here the other week but just remembered, so better late than never. Sandstein added the above warning to the main page after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, this was done with good intention though I believe this warning should have greater concensus before going live (my comments and reasoning are in the blocks and logs section of the ArbReq). Thoughts please? ^Khukri 15:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (signed later oops)

I say that placing such a template on the UTM page is a bad idea. The tone of the message is very biting to me and unknowing newbies may be extremely offended by this message. Such a warning on the UTM page may also encourage users who are in a dispute relating to the subject to place these templates on users' talk pages without thought or to get back at them. I also concur with your point on this template leading to things like {{uw-ireland}}, {{uw-israel-palestine}} etc.. Not every editor involved in editing the related Balans pages needs this rude message on their talk page and those that do should have a more personal message rather than a template. So to sum up my point, the template is over-excessive and not needed. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole idea of this preemptive warning is contrary to WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. More in line with policy, IMO, would be to give the warning to editors who are beginning to engage in behaviors that would result in these sanctions. Yes, this means they might get away with slightly more disruption, but the alternative is worse. Anomie⚔ 02:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely not suited for UTM. And personally I think templating is a very bad idea here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

uw-notcensored3

Someone has gone an nominated uw-notcensored3 and uw-notcensored4 for deletion without discussion. The point regarding softening the wording is valid; I suggest changing {{uw-notcensored3}} to

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. If you continue to make changes which have the effect of censoring an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

and changing {{uw-notcensored4}} to redirect to {{uw-delete4}} rather than {{uw-vandalism4}}. Any thoughts? Anomie⚔ 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Have replied on the TfD, cheers for bring this to our attention. ^Khukri 10:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:uw-test2

This template currently states "Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them". Should we really be discouraging second-time low-level offenders (i.e. test2 rather than vand2) from attempting to fix articles, like this wording suggests? Surely attempting to fix an article is not even covered by what we would normally consider as "test edits"? And if I'm merely misunderstanding the wording, and it's actually saying they should not be attempting to fix their own test edits (in which case it could be made clearer perhaps), then why should we be discouraging users reverting themselves?
I feel this template perhaps needs a bit of rewording. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the template was meant that the vandals should not make test edits even if they are going to remove the test edits they made afterwards. The wording may be slightly confusing and if someone comes up with a better way to word this sentence them I'm all for it. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Blog template

Is there a template to use or noticeboard to report a user using their userpage as a sport's blog? Mbisanz (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There are only templates for the more common problems, and even then they aren't a substitute for a good ol' personal message. All the templates are listed on the project page. Cheers ^Khukri 08:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Uw-tblock}}

I am considering bringing this template to TfD to be honest. I don't think it is a good idea to template people to tell them that it is bad to make death threats. What do you think? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think death and legal (until it's withdrawn) threats were temporary blocks, but yea I'd go along with that Lucas ^Khukri 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was so stunned by the by the big bold making death threats that I didn't see that! :D. Note that the legal threats one makes more sense, since WP:NLT is policy. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note there is also {{Deaththreatblock}} for indef-blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Should I bring one to tfd I'll bring the other then. Note that this one is only transcluded on 3 pages. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get round to TfDing it since I saw this version. The obvious solution with the uw-tblock template is to reword it so that it refers to inappropriate threats, or similar. There are many types of threat which will earn a block, some of them are temporary, and vandalism does not always seem to be an apt description. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the templates would suffice if they simply said "making threats" rather than "making death threats". Same with the legal threat {{Uw-lblock}} template. If we say "death" and "legal" threats, that is a) too much information; and b) putting specific ideas in other unscrupulous user's heads.--12 Noon ^2¢ 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea. ^Khukri 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How does "Threatening to take real world actions" sound, if you want a template? I dunno to be honest, WP:DENY pops in my mind when I imagine a situation where I would use such a template (Personally I think the NLT one should be kept though, for it is a convenient way to let the user know exactly why they are blocked). -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

user page

Hi, I seem to have inadvertently vandalised my own user page when I clumsily tried to add a sandbox. Unfortunately I can't see to undo or revert the change. Can anyone help?--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you are looking for, but if you put {{db-userreq}} at the top of your "vandalized" user page, an admin will probably come along and delete it for you. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition

perhaps on the end of these templates you could add ~~~~. It's not that big of a deal, but it would make life just a bit easier Ctjf83 ^talk 21:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

does anyone have a problem if i just do this? Ctjf83 ^talk 17:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The uw templates did have an auto signature feature when they were first introduced. I know that there were objections and the feature was disabled. This was before my time on the WikiProject, but I do recall there was some controversy about it. One issue would be that some of the scripts do add a sig, so it would add double sigs if the template included one too.--Kubigula (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

oh, so the scripts from like twinkle copy off these? I thought they were just for copy and pasting Ctjf83 ^talk 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also have to say leave out auto-sigs. It's not that hard to remember to sign the template like you sign any other comment, and changing that would break all existing scripts that use the uw warnings and confuse all the people who are used to the current setup. Anomie⚔ 13:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed at the beginning of the project and the answer was a resounding no, mainly because it's not standard throughout Wikipedia, which would lead to editors not remembering whish templates had to be signed and which didn't. The block templates have sig=(any char) only because they use div's. ^Khukri 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cluttering links to disambiguation pages.

Can we get this template (and others like it) to avoid cluttering the "What links here" reports from disambiguation pages by not linking to the article if it is a disambig. That will make it easier for those of us who do a lot of disambig work to see what on the page is a link that really needs to be fixed. The http link to the edit itself should suffice. If not, can we force it to pipe links to "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation)" where "Foo" is a disambiguation page? Cheers! bd2412 T 23:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I really really don't think there's a way to do that automatically, sorry. - ∅ (∅), 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Which template in particular (the talk pages for most uw series templates redirect here)? Anyway, there is no way to detect if any particular page is a disambiguation page for "forcing" piping as you request, it would be up to the person leaving the warning to handle that in some manner. And if the problem edit in question was to the disambiguation page, you're just out of luck. Personally, I would just ignore all User talk namespace pages (and talk namespaces in general) when checking that sort of thing per WP:TALK#Others' comments. Anomie⚔ 03:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

New uw template?

I've seen a few times people deleting web sources which go dead and often deleting the information soon after as unsourced! I've just read [6] which says you shouldnt do this.

Could someone put together a user warning template I can use to respond to a user who deletes a dead link without replacing it? Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. First draft at {{Uw-defunct link}}. A few issues. The name which I would have used, "dead link", is taken. Anyone have a suggestion for a better (maybe more compact) name? I couldn't figure out a generic opening that would take an if parameter, so this template will break (leave {{{1}}} in the text) if you don't add the article's name as a first parameter. I don't imagine it will be a high use template and probably only used by experienced editors so I don't think that will create much of a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-dead-link}} doesn't seem to be taken. I've tried to make the parameter optional. Anomie⚔ 14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Likewise with {{uw-deadlink}} and {{uw-dead link}}. Perhaps you were thinking of {{dead link}}? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! Looks good - I'll remember it next time I come across dead link deletions! AndrewRT(Talk) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved to {{Uw-dead link}}. You are correct Anomie. I forgot the Uw when checking that name and thus thought uw-dead link was taken.:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing third parameter usage description in sdd2

The current usage description for {{sdd2}} in the chart is incorrect. The correct paramters are 1) article name; 2) invalid reason given by csd tagger; and 3) reason why the csd tagger's rationale is incorrect. The current usage only has two parameters, and apparently {{tltts}} only allows for two. Is there any way to fix this? The correct usage description, if a third parameter was allowed, would be something like: {{tltts|sdd2|Article not speedied - valid reason that just doesn't apply|par=Article|par2=reason given for deletion|par3=reason why the csd rationale provided does not apply}}--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Death threats

Why does the death threat block message {{uw-tblock}} say that it's a temporary block, while the legal threat block message {{uw-lblock}} say it's indefinite? If you ask me, making a death threat is far more objectionable than making a legal threat, though both are uncalled for. Why would anyone who made death threats be allowed to return? - Chardish (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A better question is why we even have that template. Death threats come up so infrequently, in the time it would take to look it up and copy and paste it you could just write out a quick block message. Mr.Z-man 09:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about which template

What template should be used if a user adds in a prediction for future events? Like if someone adds "The 2008 World Series will be the Mets against the Red Sox"? This is mainly a problem on wrestling articles, where IPs will add in rumored matches or matches they want to see (or just making shit up for no reason). I normally give the Unreference warning, but should that still be given when you know the info is BS and won't have a source? TJ Spyke 22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps {{Uw-hoax}} is the closest thing? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Recently created uw templates

{{uw-badcsd}}

Redirects to User:Spebi/uw-badcsd; personally, I think if it's good enough for a redirect from the template namespace, it's good enough to actually be in the template namespace. I'm not sure if the template should be moved or the redirect RfDed, though.

{{uw-balkans}}

We discussed this above and seemed to conclude it's not appropriate for a uw template. Should we do something about it, and if so what? Possibilities include moving it, revising it, or TfDing it.

{{uw-unsourced4im}}

Redirects to {{uw-vandalism4im}}. I'm having trouble thinking of a situation that would call for a 4im warning rather than the normal series of uw-unsourced templates.

Any thoughts, anyone? Anomie⚔ 17:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

For {{uw-badcsd}}, the template should be moved to template namespace. {{uw-balkans}} should go through TFD and be removed as the message that the warning brings dosen't really fit the uw-series. The redirect at {{uw-unsourced4im}} should be removed as I agree that there probably won't be a situation where this will need to be used. These are my thoughts. --Hdt83 ^Chat 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-badcsd}} resembles {{sdd2}} - should merge content from sdd2 to make the all-new uw-badcsd so it can join WP:UTM. {{uw-balkans}} should go, unless used on occasions, in which case at least rename to something like {{arbcase-balkans}}. As for {{uw-unsourced4im}}, redirects are cheap and leaving it alone would serve as a reminder that the progression of uw-unsourced* already jumped to {{uw-generic4}} (as per WP:UTM). Dl2000 (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposing wording changes to a specific warning template

Since it seems that all the talk pages for the various templates point here, is this then the place to discuss possible changes in wording to individual templates? If so, might I ask what the rationale is for that rather than discussing on talk pages for the specific templates? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed briefly [[7]] and somewhere else I can't recall. The main reason the talk pages of individual templates all redirect here was because the discussions were too scattered and there were many cases of proposed changes and suggestions left unnoticed for months at a time so it was decided to centralize all disscussions about the uw-warnings to this talk page. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I suppose there's some sense in that. I'll make a suggestion here in a bit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Uw-copyright

This doesn't mention fair use. A little misleading, I think. Rocket000 (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Other templates section

In the "Other" section, the link that says "Click here to show messages" is redirecting to the same page as for the single level templates section, which makes me wonder what that link is for. Isn't there a page anywhere showing all the templates from the "Other" section that it could link to? • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. The history tab shows it was redirected in November - I do not know any of the back history on that. Anyway, I think all of those pages are in dire need of being reorganized pretty soon. I have been cleaning up the main page here and there and put these subpages on my to-do list, but I might not get to it for months.--12 Noon ^2¢ 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Change to {{uw-vandalism1}}

User:Angel David recently made a change to this template. The difference is that this version would explicitely identify the target's conduct as vandalism. I personally don't like this change as I think it is sufficient for the level one WP:AGF template to describe the conduct as unconstructive. If there is clear or blatant vandalism, you can always skip to the level two warning or go straight to {{Uw-vandalism4im}} or {{uw-bv}}. I like having a softer version available, and the change also deprecates the level 2 warning. Any other opinions on this?--Kubigula (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that edit is not assuming good faith. Revert it. Anomie⚔ 03:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree it should not say vandalism. Though I have wondered why need both test1 and vandalism1 when their usages are about the same. Mr.Z-man 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I use test1 if it's an inoffensive edit ("Josh is the coolest") and vandalism1 if it's more offensive ("Australians are a bunch of dumbass fuckheads"), but can still possibly be described as someone experimenting with whether they really can edit this thing.--Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. Damn, I already placed this template a few times with that language and I was not intending to label a newbie as a "vandal". This template is supposed to AGF, so it should have polite language. If you want to label a user as a "vandal", then use level 2 or 3. That is the point of "levels". Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Should such a high use template be fully protected? A change for a few minutes could affect many uses. There really isn't much of a need for it (or similar templates) to be edited. Mr.Z-man 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need both vandalism1 and test1, if nothing else, for consistency. Say a new user goes to the help desk or uses {{helpme}} and asks how do I deal with some edit and is referred to the chart and escalating warnings are explained (or simply makes it here themselves and figures it out). If they are addressing a series of vandalism edits, they should be presented with the commensurate escalating, consistently named series, each starting with vandalism, and not have to figure out that test1 is illogically followed by vandalism2. Course the chart could remain unchanged with a simple redirect from one to the other, but it still would leave an incongruity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that there are even tools that automatically post these templates on user talk pages, they should all be fully and indefinitely protected to ensure that they are not changed without discussion. - ∅ (∅), 11:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There are enough admins that keep an eye on these pages to sort any problems that arise, though I'm not entirely sure that ring fencing the warnings in their entirety will sit well with the community. ^Khukri 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that since these "uw-" templates were all (or most) created by a collaboration and all heavily scrutinized before they were implemented, any changes should be discussed first so that other templates can be updated accordingly to maintain strict consistency. Therefore, they (at least the ones using the "levels" structure) should be fully protected - thereby guaranteeing discussion. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave it here for a couple more days, then village pump the issue. ^Khukri 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Though in saying leave it here, it would be good if alot of other editors who have had a long involvement in these templates give their thoughts (even if it is just support) as well, as a starting point before going to VP ^Khukri 11:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the decision on the actual templates, I believe the shortcuts ({{uw-v1}}, etc.) for all of these should be fully protected. Thoughts on the redirects?--12 Noon ^2¢ 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't think of any good reason not to protect the redirects. Incidentally, I also agree with fully protecting the most used templates. At a minimum, there should be a notice suggesting discussion before making any substantive changes.--Kubigula (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've fully protected the common uw redirects. In some sense, these were probably at greater risk, as I doubt very many of us had them on our watchlists.--Kubigula (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Template for misuse of procedures

Is there a warning template for users who are misusing Wikipedia procedures? In the example I'm looking at, a user has nominated an obviously valid article for deletion. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

These templates are only for common garden problems that we see almost every day, and are no substitute for a good ol' personal message. In your case it depends on the reasoning for the AFD, but common problems would be WP:POINT or WP:CENSOR. Ask an admin for a speedy keep at WP:ANI, and if the editor persists without good reasoning then blocks would be issued for disruptive editing. ^Khukri 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to dispute resolution

Resolved

 – looks like it's been added. --slakr^\ talk / 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:uw-3rr might benefit from a link to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The template advises users to discuss their dispute, which is a start. The advantage of linking to the dispute resolution page is that this page helps explain what to do if simple talk page discussion doesn't work (I find often users keep reverting because they find discussion isn't productive). The one con I can think of is that this warning is already rather long and adding a link would lengthen it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How to conteract warnings being removed

Increasingly I am seeing instances of vandals removing warnings from talk pages. One way of reducing the effect of this, which I am doing, is to paste the warning template code into the Edit Summary as well. This makes it easy for an admin looking at the history to see the type and nature of the warnings, even if no warnings appear on the current version of the page. Should such a request be added to the project page and promoted ? Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:UTM page does suggest you, "give the level of the template you have used (and preferably the name: for example, "error3", "v2", "d1") in your edit summary". I think most admins are in the habit of checking the talk page history for warnings, though it definitely makes life easier if descriptive summaries are used.--Kubigula (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I block, I always look at the talk page history first to make sure all of the warnings were properly issued. You pretty much have to since WP:USER was updated to state that editors may remove at will any messages on their own talk page. That said, as a blocking admin, I certainly appreciate it whenever an editor also includes the warning in their edit summary (personally I put the generic warning in the summary, such as {{uw-error3}} or {{uw-tpv4}}). --Kralizec! (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad practice?

To me the wording the wording "bad practice" in "deleting or editing legitimate comments ... is considered bad practice", used in Template:uw-tpv1, comes across as almost a joke. Any reasons to not replace that by "... is considered unacceptable"?  --Lambiam 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a level 1 warning, so the wording seems appropriately gentle. (Just my 2 cents...) --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorporating layout into template coding

There is a suggested manner on the main page in which to apply these warnings to user talk pages:

===March 2007===
# warning
# warning
* block
# warning

So, if this is the recommended usage, should it be incorporated into the templates themselves? This would include adding a "#" at the beginning of each template and a header function (which would need coding to handle different situations - can be discussed later). Are there any drawbacks to this? Thoughts?--12 Noon ^2¢ 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose this. Trying to correctly use code to insert headers in certain cases would be more trouble than just typing "===January 2008===" when needed. As for the "#", last I heard that was put on the page because someone thought it might attract more use there, since few were using it before. Anomie⚔ 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes; numbering breaks if someone (or an automated script) skips a line:

1. one
2. two

1. three.

Plus, some of the antivandal bots that autowarn might need to be notified of the change. In all reality, we should probably just update the page to remove the whole numbering idea, because most admins (from what I would guess) and other editors don't pay attention to the sheer number of warnings but more to the the time they were left, the time between them, and what they're for. Morever, because the warnings all have icons on them, they are easy to count visually (without worrying about spacing/parsing/etc). --slakr^\ talk / 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the icon visual. If the layout suggestion is removed from the page (which then it probably should be), the heading suggestion should definitely be left intact. With that being said, since some users remove warnings from their page (as they are free to do so), I would recommend some type of standardized edit summary be suggested on the page so warning can easily be seen in the history. Maybe "WARN #1" or something, in caps. I don't know.... Thoughts?--12 Noon ^2¢ 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above in that rearranging the warnings and actually typing in the code for the warnings takes up more time. Also, tools and anti-vandal bots would have to be reprogrammed to follow this format. I say that we should get rid of this layout since the icons should be sufficient enough to tell what level warning the vandal is on. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought we already got rid of the "layout" when the #'s were removed from the templates themselves. :-p - ∅ (∅), 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Since the layout was added to this page, I have seen a definite increase in its usage by now-WP:UW members. As I noted in our previous discussion on this topic (was it in 2006?), while I prefer to keep the existing layout, I am not firmly attached. Though I feel lukewarm about them, I do not find either of the options discussed at WP:UW to be particularly objectionable:

1. drop the numbering layout, keep the icons in the warnings
2. keep the numbering layout, drop the icons in the warnings

Like I said, while I prefer the existing system and layout, I do not have any great objections to either of these options. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

uw-hblock

I took the liberty of creating {{uw-hblock}}, partially because I'm too lazy to keep pasting my block reason into {{uw-block1}} (et al). Plus, I figure it's useful shorthand for other admins as well. Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There probably is some discussion of which I am unaware, but why does the reason need to be stated on the template? The reason is usually listed in the blocklog anyway. I would point to WP:BEANS and WP:NOSPADE as reasons. I am not an admin so I do not add those templates, but I see them. If I am a vandal and I see a cohort with a block for doing such-and-such, then maybe I would do that because it is a sure way to get blocked. See a related archived thread regarding death threats. I guess I am just playing devil's advocate, but it seems to be a legitimate pondering. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I've never made a death threat block, so I definitely agree with you on that, but I've made multiple harassment blocks (usually to socks and obvious trolls), so it's less of a block message for the people using socks and trolling, as it is more for the people who might be accidentally affected by the block and for other visitors coming to the talk page to warn the user (despite him/her already being blocked). --slakr^\ talk / 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just semantics, but how does one attempt to harass another user, either they are or they aren't? ^Khukri 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

Would it be possible to include template warnings against copyright violations? --StephenBuxton (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-copyright}} is already in place. --Kife 12:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also {{subst:nothanks}}.--Kubigula (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed prohibition on removing templated warnings within one month

There is an ongoing discussion on making a prohibition on removing templated warnings within one calendar month of being placed on a user's talk page by a logged on registered user as an exception to the general practice of WP:DRC. Alice^✉ 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering this is directly contradicted by both the official vandalism policy and the guideline on user pages, I doubt this is going to get off the ground. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I've just read through our current WP:VAN policy pages and I must be rather dense this afternoon because it wasn't obvious to me why a proposal that users be prohibited from removing templated warnings (including those related to vandalism) from their own user talk page within one month is contradicted there (the edit summary by C B Dunkerson one year after discussion closed did not mention where the "community consensus" to reject the proposal was logged).
2. Guidelines change as circumstances demand, that's why the discussion is ongoing. (The relevant guideline was added relatively recently. At the time it was added, this was the relevant text on that policy page:

"Talk page vandalism

Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

Now that text is no longer present on that policy page, it is arguable whether the guideline should be revised as well...)

In any event, "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community..." and if you visit the discussion, you will see why these changes are being proposed. Alice^✉ 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-balkans}}

Hello, I just wanted to let people know that as discussed above, the template uw-balkans has been nominated for deletion at tfd. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:uw-balkans to discuss. Thanks. --Hdt83 ^Chat 10:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for minor change to {{subst:uw-spam1}}

Just an idea to make the wording flow better: This:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not...

to this: (modified areas in bold)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not...

I thought I should ask before making any kind of modification to any of the user warnings. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Template:Uw-vandalism1 already uses that language. I would think all of the level 1 templates should be checked and updated with this language. Go for it. --12 Noon ^2¢ 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Uw-tblock}} nominated for deletion

I crossed this template again this afternoon and this time I decided to nominate it for deletion. You are invited to voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_22#Template:Uw-tblock. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

review of {{Uw-lblock}}

I tweaked this template to make it more informative (the previous version was very blunt, in my opinion). What do you think? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo in template

Resolved

 – Spelling corrected. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an "e" missing from "everyone". I don't have access to fix this. --Mr R 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the warning templates redirect back to this central talk page, please specify which particular template has the error. Regards. --12 Noon ^2¢ 01:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ach, hadn't spotted the redirect. 'Tis {{uw-npa1}} --Mr R 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-vandalism4im}}

Is there any real need for such a warning? That "only" word is way too strong: IMO, it implies you'll never get another; and it certainly can't (this is still IMO) be used if there already are some warnings on the page! Even "If you see a vandal with a long history" (as said here, and i assumed it meant a long history of unwarned vandal edits), i'd go for vandal3 instead... Or if that long history was already warned (as seen here), vandal4 would be just fine. Perhaps a modified v4im, that said "your newest disruptive edits" or "your recent disruptive edits"... Other thoughts? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is, as it is the only warning the editor will receive. This warning should not be used on first time vandals or editors with a mixed history of vandalism and good edits, but usually on persistent IP's, with a number of blocks to their names, where the editing trend suggests there is a very high chance the next edit will be vandalism. This is the set of warnings were AGF can only go so far, and we have to face facts that if a school IP only has vandalism edits to it's name, once a block has expired, we tell them again of the consequences and go for a longer block next time if the warning is ignored. Cheers ^Khukri 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Khukri. I have seldom used that warning, but I have used it when an account has had a long string of vandalism that was clearly intentional, but no recent warnings. If they were blocked 3 months ago and have vandalized regularly for the last 2 months without getting a warning, there's no purpose in starting them off with a level 2 warning... --Orlady (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I use it in cases where {{uw-bv}} doesn't apply, I don't want to block them immediately (e.g., their last block expired a few months back, but they still have an extensive history of vandalism and blocks), or they've done a lot of vandalism yet haven't been warned yet. My only problem with people using {{uw-vandalism4im}} is that they use it instead of {{uw-vandalism1}} or {{uw-vandalism2}} thinking that when they report to WP:AIV we'll treat it as a final warning, which is likely not going to be the case except in cases of sockpuppetry or something extraordinary. --slakr^\ talk / 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, a question: when should warning4 be used and when should warning4im be used? ~Ambrosia- ^talk 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

warning4 is used after warning3 has been issued. warning4im is the only warning they receive, which is used for chronic vandals after a block expires. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

uw-afd1 - minor wording change

May I suggest a slight change to the wording of uw-afd1? "It would be appreciated if you would not remove Articles for deletion notices" may not be strictly incorrect from a grammatical point of view, but isn't particularly "natural" English. I would suggest "if you did not remove" or "you refrained from removing" instead. Tevildo (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the current wording is a bit awkward. I would go with an even simpler, "Please do not remove...".--Kubigula (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Kubigula (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The sandbox clause

I propose removing the sandbox clause ("If you would like to experiment...") from {{uw-npov2}}. When people are pushing POV, they usually aren't just experimenting, they mean what they say. It's actually a matter of courtesy that we take them seriously. Implying that they may have been just fooling around with no purpose comes across as condescending. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, removed :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Uw-spam1 links to WP:EL twice

It links to Wikipedia:External_links twice in the first sentence. Slightly confusing for the layperson I think. I reckon it would read better if the first instance was unlinked. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done--Kubigula (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to Uw-coi

Would it be better if Template:Uw-coi was changed so that "avoid breaching relevant policies" was not numbered as part of the previous list, which has a different context? Maybe instead of "#:and you must always: / # '''avoid breaching'''...", "And you must always '''avoid breaching'''..."? --Jason McHuff (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

welcome-joke

There are times when a new user gets off on the wrong foot, and rather than get a welcome message the new user gets bombarded with warnings. In the interest of assuming good faith, it might be helpful to give the user a welcome message combined with a notice of what they've done wrong.

For new editors that have made joke edits, I created Template:welcome-joke. May I add this to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace? Kingturtle (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions, but it seems like the purpose of that template kind of overlaps with the purpose of {{uw-joke1}}. Perhaps a rewording of {{uw-joke1}} is in order? - Chardish (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sending the {{uw-joke1}} message misses out on also providing the new user with a wide array of helpful links. Kingturtle (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do new users really want a wide array of helpful links, or do they want a few links, carefully selected? Providing links to nearly every useful page (there are 64 links on that template) is overwhelming. - Chardish (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If I feel a user falls into the category Kingturtle is talking about, I always give the user both {{uw-joke1}} and {{welcome}}. That seems to do the trick in my mind. I believe that all of these "combo" messages are ineffective and I have never used them; whereas 2 separate messages make the appropriate points. Regards. --12 Noon ^2¢ 21:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I too use both those links. And that's why it occurred to me to combine them. Just an idea. Kingturtle (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Date page warnings

The Wikicalendar articles have guidelines that might not be common knowledge for passing editors. I've created two warnings for use in reference to bad edits to those articles. They tell the user what they did wrong where a regular vandalism warning doesn't tell them much. I propose adding them to the regular template space. They can be viewed at user:Mufka/uw-date1 and user:Mufka/uw-date2. I also use user:Mufka/uw-fd1 but it's a little less useful for most editors. I like them and I thought others might like them. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the "guidelines" linked on the proposed messages are just for the WikiProject. The "uw-" template messages usually only reference official policy. Project guidelines are not all that enforceable. Might be a tough sell. Regards. --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"uw-huggle"?

I just ran my new uw-template detection script, and among other things a number of templates beginning with "uw-huggle" were added. What exactly is a "huggle" that it needs to be warned about? Anomie⚔ 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:HUGGLE should help. From what I understand, the creator of the vandal-fighting tool did not care for the "uw-" templates and created his own warning templates, but I might have that wrong. However, they seem to now be redirects to the standard "uw-" templates. --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember of Template:Uw-huggle that was deleted at the end of the month (my memory might be wrong, but I am not an admin so I cannot check the deleted page to see), that page stated that the Huggle tool doesn't actually use templates, or something along those lines, but it used huggle1, 2 and so on for the benefit of certain other tools (I'm assuming bots and the like, that check for warnings to see which warning to administer next). Again, if an admin can check the text of the deleted page Template:Uw-huggle, I might be wrong, but that's the best I can remember from memory. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From the deleted page:

"In order for certain processes to interpret them correctly, user warnings have to end with a comment of the form <!-- Template:uw-***n -->, where *** is the warning series name and n is the warning level. Huggle's warnings are not generated by templates; however, in order to conform to this pattern, the comments have to give the impression that they are. These non-existent templates all redirect here. They should not actually be used."

So it looks like the templates are not actually on Wikipedia but is generated by the tool itself. --Hdt83 ^Chat 03:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RFD for uw-vandalism4x and abbreviations

This was originally brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings#Past-last warning, someone proposed yet another "you have been reported to WP:AIV" warning, apparently after creating a bunch of redirects into their user space. Based on past discussion, I've listed the redirects at RfD. Anomie⚔ 05:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

UW-3RR

I'm looking at {{uw-3rr}}, which serves to warn a user in danger of violating WP:3RR that they may be blocked for further violations. As this template serves as a final warning (for the purposes of blocking admins), I think it should highlight the threat of a block. Compare {{uw-vand4}}, thus:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Article name, you will be blocked from editing.

The explicit statement that the users actions will result in a block is in bold. I propose changing the current template for 3rr warnings in similar fashion, thus:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article name. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Thoughts? If there are no objections, I'll be bold and handle it. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The bolding is appropriate and should be implemented. But I believe it should state "you will be blocked" rather than "you may be blocked". If "may" is used, it suggests there is only a possibility they are violating the 3RR rule, in which case they should not have received the warning. The warning is used for editors who are edit warring, which means if they continue then they "will" be blocked, not "may" be blocked. Regards. --12 Noon ^2¢ 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

...And using "Will" would match the other final warning templates. Level 3 warnings generally use "May", so this is another useful distinction. If there are no objects, then, I'll make the change later this afternoon. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's what was termed as a single issue template when the uw- warnings were created, and shouldn't be compared with either lvl 3 or 4 of the multi lvl'd system and is a warning in it's own right. There have been discussions along time ago about this warning at WP:UW and/or WP:UTM I can't remember. Now it's my re-collection that it should be may as 3RR has exceptions, and the syntax gives the receiving editor, a chance to explain his actions prior to a block being issued. The problem with warnings in regards to 3rr is it is very difficult to have a good faith level of warning, as it's such an arbitrary figure. This warning is trying to roll the aspects of informing a potential new user that their actions are unacceptable and pointing them in the right direction with maintaining a hard line to stop potential disruption to the project. This in my opinion is one example where a templated warning is almost certainly not as good as a good ol' personal message, and you are issuing this warning because you do not have the time to start a dialogue, such as a quick vandal or stalker reverting another editors edits. I would take this to WP:UW as well and ask the guys there, for their opinions. ^Khukri 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and bolded the existing warning. The wording - "may" to "will" is a secondary change, and I'll discuss it over at WP:UW before any change. But, there seems to be agreement on the bolding of the warning to match other warnings, so I'll handle that. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sry I should have said I had no problems with the bolding, and good on ya' for being bold and doing the bold ;) ^Khukri 15:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User page spam tag

I've taken the liberty of creating a new spam warning tag -- {{Spam-warn-userpage}} -- to used for those trying to use userspace for posting spam. The existing tag ({{Spam-warn}}) had text that was often inapplicable, so I copied it and modified the language accordingly. Let me know if I screwed something up in the process. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I'm no expert. Can't wait to get rid of some trolls with this... :P (ApJ (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Run it past the guys at WP:SPAM as well they're best placed to give contrcutive pointers there. Looks good to me, though is there anyway it can be boiler plated with the original, tweaking the wording to remove the article bias, so we have one template for both cases? Cheers ^Khukri —Preceding comment was added at 10:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this template is going too far

I would like to point out that this template makes no attempt to prove what it's charging. It gives a point of view (that the person violated policy) as if it were a fact. The policy is: you should try to write with neutral point of view. That someone did not have neutral point of view is personal opinion. I think blocking someone for having a point of view is going too far, since you can simply do the rewrite yourself. The main rule of Wikipedia is: "Anybody can edit." People are more important than perfect writing. -- Chuck Marean 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so! Bill , your editing is greatly appreciated, Any attempts at wikiwarring are not. If you object to discussion quote removal, please refrain from doing so yourself." Mudding in the cause of civility" is still mudding.

Kind regards the Defender of Good Administration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.172.15 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems this is not the only forum that you have brought this issue. To answer it from the UTM/UW perspective simply adding information to Wikipedia that does not have verifiable source (or removing information that is) can and often is challenged as POV. Continuing to do so whilst having been informed of wikipedia's POV policies is why these templates were created. That is to give editors a structured system whereby they can inform other editors that their edits are point of view, maybe also considered to be original research and needs to have verifiable sources, if after a number of warnings, these suggestions are not followed then blocks will be issued. Discuss first, achieve concensus and a neutral point of view then edit later. This usually removes the need for this type of template. If you want any help or direction don't hesitate to give me a shout. ^Khukri 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain

This template should’t claim somebody did something without explanation of why you think the person did what you claim. Stating or implying that someone “violated” Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy without explaining why you think so is libelous. In fact, even with explanation it would be more truthful to say “In my opinion, what you wrote didn’t have a neutral point of view.” This template and it’s usage should have a neutral point of view. Chuck Marean 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why the above message is on here four times. I only pressed Save Page once.--Chuck Marean 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the other copies of the post for you. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite suggestion

In {{subst:uw-npov1|Article|Additional text}}, I think "appears to carry a non-neutral point of view" should say "appears to me." Also, after "Please remember to observe our core policies," I think the template should say something like," Here's why I think your contribution was not in neutral point of view:" --Chuck Marean 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what the second parser is for, for clarifying why the template was issued if further clarification is required. And as I explained above, it should not be "appears to me" or anything similar. ^Khukri 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Khukri. The template should really only be used if an edit pretty clearly violates NPOV - here's kind of an extreme example. If it's not pretty clear, then a template ought not be used.--Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain, don’t libel

The warning templates I just reviewed claim without proof that somebody did something wrong. They are probably against the law in Florida and elsewhere. They ought to be rewritten to give just the facts of the edit being criticized, including proof. They should also give the facts of the person planning to use the template, such as it’s just his or her opinion, and point out that it is in fact a template message being used. The user should also explain how the edit being disliked could be improved. The “additional text section” should always be used. I understand Wikipedia’s policy is to always assume good faith. Yet, none of the warning templates I just looked at do that at all. The warnings should admit they are just an opinion. They should be polite and caring of the person being criticized.--Chuck Marean 10:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Proof can be provided using the second parser and the article name is the first parser. If you read the project page "They are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more." The template is a tool, and does meet these requirements that you so require. The application of the NOR warning to your talk page prior to your block, and that fact you received personal messages as well, should leave an editor in no doubt as to which were the offending edits.

I've re-factored the talk page to put all of your comments in the same place as they pertain to the same issue. ^Khukri 10:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

These templates ars only a way for a user to type something he means faster. If you have concerns regarding a single usage of a template, you should bring these concerns to the user that left the message. The "level 1" templates assume good faith, which is not a free pass for everything but only means "first assume the user screwed up and did not mean to hurt the project". If the user continues there is then a need to be more pressing. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

When (not) to use {{uw-spam1}}?

(I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, but I couldn't find a better place.)

Is there a consensus that this template is appropriate in a case that is more likely the result of a user not understanding the wiki way than a blatant intention to spam? (Say a new user experiments with a link to a site in their sandbox. Much later in their second edit they turn two words into links: One a wikilink to an existing article, and one an external, but otherwise perfectly reasonable, link to the same site that appeared in their sandbox edit.)

WP:WikiProject Spam#Tag 'em to stop 'em seems to say, when in doubt ("suspicious edits"), tag. I looked this up after a more experienced editor told me that there was a consensus to use this template in such cases. I am feeling a bit uneasy about the thought that this could be general practice. In my example the text of the template clearly doesn't explain what was wrong about the edit (no external links in the main text). So the message would seem to be: You have done something wrong, but we are not even taking the time to explain to you what, exactly, was the problem. This seems to be potentially alienating, and not in line with our usual leniency. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Similar to a previous post. This is where familiarity with the warnings comes into play. If you just slap a warning on a talk page without using either the article or the additional comment strings available within the template than your example would be accurate. But this is the fault of the editor not fully understanding the templates or using them to their potential, and not the template themselves. The templates were designed to be able to add additional information if so required to make the reason clearer. These are boilerplate templates with the ability to be slightly changed to meet individual circumstances, but taken from the front page "They are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more. If you cannot find a template that says what you want to say then go ahead and say it normally.". Though in saying all this, if you can see a way where we can assume greater faith with the lvl 1 warning, please feel free to suggest it. Cheers ^Khukri 22:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I imagined. But then I felt a bit intimidated by that particular editor's response when I asked him about this. To be frank, I have the impression that he tries to avoid typing wherever possible and that he doesn't mind if it comes across as uncivil. I will think about the language of the template; perhaps there is a way to make it harder to abuse it in this way. Cheers. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving talkpage of Template talk:Test-self

Conditional link

I thought we decided not to use {{qif}} on test templates? -- Avi 00:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just like in {{test}} there is an option for putting in the name of the article, I think that there should be here. Eli Falk 13:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is already. It is {{test-self-n}} -- Avi 14:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved documentation

It's now at Template:Test-self/doc.+mwtoews 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Shouldn't it say "In the future", rather than "In Future"? TJ Spyke 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, "in the future" has a subtly different meaning:

...in future in British English means "from now on", while in the future means "at some future point in time (perhaps very remote)". So, for example, under the normal reading, Human beings will live on the moon in future (in British English) is false: there are no humans living on the moon today, and it will be the same tomorrow and every day for many years to come. But Human beings will live on the moon in the future might well be true.

— Geoffrey K. Pullum, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004201.html

The same page states that "in future" is attested to in AmEng as well as BrEng, at a lower frequency but with the same fine shade of meaning. –EdC 14:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds all wonky though, like something a person new to the English language would say. "In the future" sounds better. TJ Spyke 07:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but "in the future" is plain wrong in BrEng. Perhaps we should come up with an alternative way to say it. –EdC 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It really does need to be changed. Even if it's technically correct in American English, I'm not so sure that vandals and other people making tests are going to know that. (And it's a Bad Thing when people don't think we can warn people correctly.) ShadowHalo 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We need something that is correct – and sounds correct – in both AE and BE. How about: "When making future edits, please do not experiment on article pages; instead, use the sandbox."? –EdC 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We could use something similar to the other low-level user warning templates like "If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." ShadowHalo 23:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

They already have been experimenting, just in the wrong place... how about: "If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox next time." –EdC 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. ShadowHalo 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. –EdC 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This sentence "If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox next time." doesn't flow well. It seems like 'again' and 'next time' are redundant. Again already implies next time. I suggest that it either be changed to:

• "If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox next time."

or

• "If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox."

-- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style warning templates

When used with an article parameter, these templates currently read something along the lines of the following:

Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to Article, makes it harder to read.

I've gone through and changed these instances to read "in Article" rather than "to Article"; one uses styles in articles, not to articles. If anyone has any objections, please discuss and/or revert as necessary. haz (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Needed: Plagiarism warnings

I just reverted some instances of plagiarism of books found on Google books, and I couldn't find an appropriate warning to issue to the user. I used a vandalism warning with a note I added about plagiarism.[8] It would be nice if a series of warning templates existed to warn users that we shouldn't copy the works of others in Wikipedia.

In a similar vein, a series of copyvio warnings would also be useful. The plagriarism warnings would be used in cases of no copyright violation (like copying from Google books, which aren't copyrighted). =Axlq (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For most cases the {{uw-copyright}} meet the requirements, the series of warnings (copyvio's) were deleted quite sometime ago, as there is no grey area. You are either adding copyrighted material to wikipedia or not, hence there is a single issue warning and the material is instantly removed.

As I understand it though, if the works fall under free content (personally not sure google books do) then there is no problems with its inclusion within wikipedia, and what is then be objected to is the actual wording of the edits themselves making it a content dispute. ^Khukri 08:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Khukri. The most serious issue for WP is copyright violation, and we have a strong warning for that. For our purposes, most instances of plagiarism can be treated the same as copyright violation. If the content is taken from a google (or other) book that is in the public domain, that is legally OK, though it is intellectually dishonest and violates WP:V. However, our articles are dynamic so that the plagiarised content should eventually be sufficiently changed or removed.--Kubigula (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite suggestion

I have this suggestion to rewrite the level one vandalism warning to make it sound more official:

This is a level-one warning. Please be more concerned about you use of the “save this page” button. Your recent page-blanking, graffiti, saucy remark, or etc, shown on this diff page did not seem to improve the article. Be advised that to respect our readers it’s possible for individual privileges to use the “edit this page” tab to be turned off, or blocked. Curiosity based edits can be done on official test pages called sandboxes. This has been a level-one warning.

The above wording, I think, would make the warning sound like a serious warning. --Chuck Marean 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu anyone? ^Khukri 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that's more serious or official than the present template; it just appears to be more verbose. Nufy8 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Documentation

Should the link in the sentence "For usage instructions regarding this template, see documentation" really point here, to the talk page? --DocumentN (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I agree with your point; I just clicked on that link and expected something else. ♠TomasBat 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image tags

If somebody removes a source needed tag from an image {{Di-no source}} without providing a source, what is the correct tag to use for them? TJ Spyke 12:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can start with a {{uw-d1}} as a good faith, then work up to {{uw-d3}}. After that for the final warning, if they do not engage in discussion, you say it as you see it which is vandalism {{uw-v4}}. The deletion templates are a generic to cover all types of problems so you could use something like {{subst:uw-d1|image:name.jpg|This is concerning your recent removal of the no source tag. Please discuss this issue and do not remove the tag until resolved. Thank you}}. ^Khukri 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

trolling

is there in existence a template message to address trolling? if so, can you tell me? if not, can someone create one? Kingturtle (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the exact circumstance, but we tend to class any edits detrimental to the project as vandalism, i.e {{uw-v1}} -> {{uw-v4}}. If you can give us more details we can tell you which template to use and how to word it accordingly. ^Khukri 12:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I wanted to respond to User:195.188.183.89 about these edits: [9],

[10], [11]. I thought a trolling message would be useful here. Kingturtle (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but it's content dispute and not really the realm of warning templates. You may want to read here WP:DISPUTE for some pointers. I would however consider the legal threat side of things quite seriously read here and consider taking it to WP:ANI, unfortunately I'm off now for a few hours, so would likely leave it hanging. ^Khukri 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert means return

My version of this template, [12], uses the word revert correctly. My version sounds like a warning against vandalism, and it encourages people to read. -- Chuck Marean 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "Level 1 – Assumes good faith. Generally includes 'Welcome to Wikipedia' or some variant."

Your version very quickly gets into "the response to malicious mischief is blocking or banning the vandal." It reads like a indirect threat to block, which I think is somewhat strong for a message which assumes good faith. If you want a template that reads more like a "warning against vandalism", use one of the higher level templates. --Sturm 19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chuck, you're aware that there are multiple levels of warnings, right? This level 1 warning is appropriately worded to assume good faith and not bite any new editors who simply made a mistake. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your points have been answered previously and you do not wish to engage in discussion. Re-raising the same old points will be given due attention they deserve. ^Khukri 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For a level 1, that sounds rather harsh and scary, especially to new users who don't know levels 2, 3, and 4 exist. MBisanz ^talk 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Should vandalism templates link to articles or oldid's?

If you warn someone to stop vandalise an article, what proof do you have if you link to the already fixed article? -62.219.107.28 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Only takes a couple of seconds to look in the articles history, and find the diffs if there is a dispute. ^Khukri 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not if the warning is an old one, or to a frequently edited article. And in some rare cases the warned user may not know what edit the warning refers to; such as hypothetically in cases of shared IPs, mistaken identity due to similar usernames, or serious failure to WP:AGF. It's kind of like saying wikilinks are a pointless feature when it only takes a couple more seconds to type out a proper HTML link. --DocumentN (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Contact me"

Why does template:uw-unsourced2 (and only 2) include the line "Contact me if you need assistance adding references." Is there a version that says "If you require assistance, please feel free to contact somebody else"? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The "contact me" section was added in August, last year, with an edit summary "changes per comments on my talk page". It seems to have been a response to this exchange. Jeepday made a similar edit to {{Uw-unsourced2}}, but that was reverted. --Sturm 08:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say if you are going to issue a warning template, you have to be ready to help out and educate a new editor who may not know better. It's not all about issuing templates and then let someone clear up afterwards. ^Khukri 09:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you strongly suspect a user is making stuff up, you might consider it better to risk scaring off a good editor than to ignore a bad one potentially fouling up articles that may not be immediately fixed. --DocumentN (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

stranded discussion

I recently merged the template {{Test-self}} into {{uw-selfrevert}}, but I didn't know where we wanted to put the discussion. So now there is some discussion from last year at Template_talk:Test-self, all by its lonesome. Do we want to merge it here or archive it here so it's not sitting out there attached to a redirect?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll slot it in to the archive here. cheers ^Khukri 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Recreating deleted content?

I thought that there was a warning for recreating deleted content, but upon looking for it just now I can't find it. Was it deleted? moved? just a figment of my imagination? something else? Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to {{uw-recreated}} ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to uncyclopedia?

Hey, I read Uncyclopedia (a parody of wikipedia) a lot, and I think that a sugesstion to go there would be appropriate for this template[humor, level 1], but I'd like to know what everyone else think, or how such a sugesstion should be worded. What do y'all think? Rustyfence (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a series of warnings already about people trying to create humourous entries {{uw-joke1}} -> {{uw-joke4}}, there used to be a reference to Uncyclopedia but it was removed, see here and there have been many other discussion relating to this scattered around, and most times I've seen it not accepted for varying reasons. ^Khukri 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording

The boilerplate text "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Foo," can have a double meaning if Foo is the name of a city or other place often vandalized. 4.242.147.147 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NavBox of these templates for my own user page?

Is there a summary template of these templates similar to template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Only WP:TT, but it's difficult to summarise 200+ talk page templates unfortunately. ^Khukri 10:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Uw-editsummary}}

See User:MBK004/Pet peeve for a more comprehensive (but POV) version. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Prune the icons

The icon at the front of the {{Uw-vandalism1}} and {{Uw-vandalism2}} templates is making those templates less helpful and making the pages harder to read. The problem comes on pages where (mostly anonymous) users gather a rapid pattern of warnings about vandalism. Subsequent editors and admins need to rapidly scan the page to see what level of warning was last applied and decide what level of escalation is appropriate. The icons get in the way of quickly reading the page.

If they were consistently applied across all the level 1 and 2 warnings (like, for example, the warning triangle on the level 3s), it would be different. Then, subsequent editors would at least be able to read the page consistently. As it is, you've got a series of warnings, some with the icon, some without. The visual effect is unnecessarily confusing.

Note: I recommend against applying the icon to all the level 1 and 2 warnings 1) because I don't think you can find all the templates in use and 2) because I don't think the images add enough to the debate to justify the burden on the pageload. Yes, they're small images but they don't really add anything to the meaning or interpretation. Even a small burden should be avoided unless there is some advantage to including them. Rossami (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion there should be an icon that indicates a level 1 warning. If it is this icon (I came here from Template:Uw-vandalism1 and address that), so be it. This (Template:Uw-vandalism1) is among the most heavily used of the level 1 templates. If consistency is desired, then strive for consistency in information enhancement rather than for lowest common denominator. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I would advocate using a different icon for level 1 and level 2. For instance, if level 1 is a calming blue, make level 2 have some orange in it to indicate a level of distress. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been alot of discussion about the icons in the past, look through the archive here, and at WT:UW. First of all the UW series of warnings all have icons. We created this system to have the same look and feel across the board with the warnings. Now the problem we have is some people don't like icons, some people like smiley faces, some like them in leery great fluorescent boxes, and trying to change these editors minds is like trying to herd cats. People have their favourite warnings and don't want them touched, which was where the UW prefix came in. As an admin, before I can issue a block I have to look through the edits themselves, the contributions, and the talk page. I find there is an advantage as the icon makes scanning the page much easier to see the levels of warnings that have been previously issued. With the icons removed, they would not standout from standard talk page messages or anything else. With the exception of a few editor who I know don't like the warnings, the majority of warnings I now see on talk page over the last year, are the UW warning and their layout gives a uniform look across page. The older warning are what make it look like a mess.

Just in reply to, Ceyockey level 2 should be faith neutral, and not about distress, hence the warning should be seen more as informative, hence the icon. ^Khukri 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin who spends a fairly good amount of time at AIV, if editors do not use the recommended numbering layout, then the icons work almost as well when it comes to giving an immediate visual reference for where new warnings start. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning for BLP privacy violations

I can see a template for violations of a user's privacy, but is there a template for violations of a article subject's privacy? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Another section header?

I go here fairly often to copy a warning template, but there is a lot of scrolling to do as the Table of Contents does not show up until after the introducing text. I'm going to add the TOC magic word after the first paragraph, I hope noone minds this. Jobjörn (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it (same problem) but I tried moving the TOC tag higher, before the first text paragraph, and think that even better. Otherwise it reads clumsy splitting the two paragraphs. I didn't save that version but would like it higher. Can the TOC be higher and off to the side so as not to stop the flow of the text? Shenme (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! Jobjörn (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Wth does "huggle" mean?! Jobjörn (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See also - WP:HUGGLE. It's software for dealing with Vandalism. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Why does it have its own template? (Or rather, its own redirect to a template?) Jobjörn (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - I imagine it would be to highlight that the template was placed in a semi-automated fashion using the software. I can't really think of another reason, but someone else might know of one. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Huggle uses its own warning messages. However, for these messages to be correctly identified by certain automated processes, such as ClueBot, they have to contain a comment of the form <!-- Template:Uw-* --> with the * replaced by the warning type and level. Huggle therefore inserts such comments, but in doing so gives the impression that the warning messages exist as templates, which they do not. These supposed template names are redirected to roughly equivalent actual templates in case anyone actually tries to use them – Gurchzilla 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Older set of warnings don't match with current set

There is an older set of warning templates (such as Template:Test4) in which the final warning reads "this is your last warning" whereas in the newer set the warnings read "this is the last warning you will receive for you disruptive edits". I think that the warnings should match. If no one has any objections within a week's time, I'll change one to match the other.--Urban Rose 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not touch the old warnings as you will incur the wrath of certain editors who do not like the standardised system. Look through the archive discussions here and at WT:UW for more info. Cheers ^Khukri 10:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Supplying multiple links in the same template

Most of these templates (if not all) are {{uw-example|article|some text}}. Why not at least allowing {{uw-something|article1|some text|article2}}? I've also tried {{uw-example|article1]] and [[article2}} but you see what (at least currently) happens... -62.219.107.171 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

These templates are boilerplate to fit most circumstances, the cases where two article names are required are rare and I would suggest this would be an ideal example for a handwritten warning. ^Khukri 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing: Not Clear

One thing about this article isn't clear to me. So when do you take a step up to the next level of warning templates?

O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no rigid rule for warnings, but generally you should increase the level if the user does not heed previous warnings and continues to disrupt. Starting with level one, then going to two if the user continues, then three if he/she does it again, etc., is a pretty standard method. However, such a progression is not mandatory; for example, if a user has no warnings and is blatantly vandalizing articles, you may want to begin with {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}. It's all about discretion, really. Nufy8 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So if I see another warning in the user's talk page, say a Level 1 warning about a different article. So if that person vandalizes again, should I put in a level 2 warning?

O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 06:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. Nufy8 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

agf template

I'm a little concerned with the series of templates starting with {{Uw-agf1}}. There's actually already an excellent essay on the problem with this series of templates: Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. This template fails to do this. As such, the template is ironic, in that it will very often be used without the same assumption for which it calls. I'm sure we've all seen disputes on Wikipedia that devolve into editors telling each other to assume good faith. "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?" While certainly well meaning, I believe this template has almost no potential to be effective. An editor exhorted to assume good faith with a template is not going to wonder if and start assuming good faith, but he will feel that he's been condescended to. If others agree, perhaps we should deprecate this warning series? --JayHenry (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If an editor used a template like that in a generic form then it would be themselves that is at fault, not the template itself. It's an intro point to the etiquette of dealing with other editors for those that might generally not understand how to conduct themselves. The template is boilerplate and gives a starting point. In specific cases you would modify the template to suit the circumstance using the inbuilt parsered comments.

{{subst:uw-agf1|Talk:Article|It's not generally accepted to tell someone to "go take a running jump" whilst discussing your recent edits, and you will find editors far more ameniable to discussion if you try to understand their actions first.}}

I personally think these templates do serve a purpose and give editors a starting point, but if you think this can be improved by re-wording them go ahead. If people are going to get upset by a template, do you not think the same editors will still get upset by slapping a link on their talk page to the essay and saying "I suggest you read that". These templates are not to be used to hide behind (as it says on the project page) as some form of pseudo officialdom but we should also not avoid pointing out to editors where their edits or behaviour is deemed to be unacceptable. As it says on the front page You are responsible for ensuring that the template's text is appropriate to the violation: if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't re-word it. ^Khukri 09:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response, but unfortunately I don't think the wording of {{uw-agf1}}, {{uw-agf2}} and {{uw-agf3}} can be improved. The point is not the template itself, but rather that in my time here I've never seen an exhortation to Assume Good Faith to be an effective method of either calming a dispute or getting someone to assume good faith. I would even go so far as to say that the majority of instances in which WP:AGF is linked it is done so hypocritically. The people that most frequently link this essay are invariably guilty of violating it. I of course agree that we should point out to editors where their edits or behavior are unacceptable. But a generic AGF warning, of any sort, is simply either ineffective or more likely damagingly counterproductive. Good faith must be demonstrated, rather than generically linked. "I understand you disagree with So-and-so but when I look at this from his perspective, etc." This template blunts that message, as it does not afford the very assumption it exhorts. --JayHenry (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position, but to me the problem seems then that we will avoid telling editors about AGF in case we are being hypocritical and not assuming it ourselves? There is behaviour on Wikipedia that warrants the use of these templates for unacceptable behaviour, now are majority of users who use this template are hypocritical I personally don't believe so and think it's subjective opinion. What systems would you have in place to inform and ensure editors understand one of the key tenets of Wikipedia or do we turn a blind eye to it for fear of being considered hypocritical ourselves? ^Khukri 07:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Related TfD and MfD

Please see the TfD discussion for the nomination of {{uw-toilet1}} and {{uw-toilet2}} for deletion. The related Wikipedia:Toilet is similarily up for MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Toilet --Kralizec! (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. All have been snowball deleted. ^Khukri 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

level three templates {{uw-v3}}

I want to know if anyone feels the same way I do about the "Please stop." in them. To me the "please stop" just sounds like "Please stop, you're hurting Wikipedia, pretty please stop", and it sounds like a violation of WP:DENY, strangely enough I find the ones that go "please stop doing such and such" to be better than the ones that just have "Please stop." as the first sentence, so I propose changing uw-vandalism3 (and similar) to "Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia or you will be blocked from editing" or dropping it all together "Don't vandalize Wikipedia or you will be blocked from editing" or possible something completely different like "Please refrain from vandalizing pages or you will be blocked from editing", and frankly there are a lot of possibilities, I just want to know if anybody else is displeased with the wording of level three templates, and if yes, what should it be changed to? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

One motivation (if I remember correctly from reading discussions back when) was that the first part of the message should be as simple as possible, because at least some users will be non-English speakers. If they didn't understand (presumably) other messages they should get the later ones. So a really short phrase is a good idea. I mean, compare uw-v1, uw-v2, and uw-v3. 'refrain' is not often in my vocabulary, 'constructive' looks like Latin, and 'vandalizing' looks Dutch. But 'stop' I know in a couple different languages. We want them to get at least this part.

Then there was the consideration that the admonition should be as polite as possible, while still being to the point. 'Please' is another word they should know, and we're not cursing at them, so we haven't lost our self-respect, even though we're losing respect for them.

Very probably if you went back into the archived discussions you'd find someone saying exactly the same things you are above. But in combination with all the concerns I think they came up with a workable set of messages. Though, an icon of a knife pinning a hand to a keyboard might've been fun to try out during school times...   ;-)   Shenme (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But if there's a non-English vandal, and he's blatantly vandalizing, he knows he's doing wrong, so just seeing the warning symbol is enough for him to understand that we're asking him to stop doing what he's doing, in this case, the warnings are merely procedure as the person knows that they're vandalizing anyway. I like the idea of the knife though. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The lvl3 warning is the first of the two stern warnings (if the series has a lvl4). Originally it was foreseen that a new user/clean talk page would receive a lvl1 warning and a returning user would receive a lvl2, then we would go 3 - 4. Unfortunately this is rarely followed these days, along with us taking the moral high ground and trying to educate vandals has gone out of the window and it's almost always 4im warnings that are issued these days.

I have to agree to some extent with Shenme above whilst we are beginning to say "Oi we don't like what you are doing" we are still doing it politely. However I can see how it's currently worded could seem a tad 'whiney', though your examples are quite hard and are more along the lines of a lvl4 warning. Make a few suggestions keeping it polite but informing the user of possible repercussions for their actions, and we'll have a look at them. Though what ever change is decided upon it must be across the board. ^Khukri 07:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with anything that doesn't use the "please stop" as a single sentence and possibly that doesn't connect the vandalism to WIkipedia as a whole, this makes it seem like the vandal is doing collateral damage, I think "Please stop vandalizing or you might/could be blocked from editing Wikipedia" or "Please don't vandalize or you run the risk of being blocked from editing Wikipedia". Or, "Please don't vandalize or you might lose editing privileges thank you." The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Big problem with one set of warnings.

The joke warning, that begins with "Thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia", is basically encouraging more vandalism by congratulating the user for the joke. This should be changed. MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's encouraging the vandalism, but I don't like it either, to me it seems rather condescending and frankly, I don't see the point of this set to even exist, 99% of "joke" edits are bad faith and actually vandalism, I don't think many people go to Wikipedia thinking it's a joke sight and this template is misused IMO, it should only be used if people use a tone that suggests humor rather than people who go to an article and just add nonsense, that's vandalism, not a joke edit. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Originated for the meme of uncyclopedia type edits a couple of years ago. While joking and the creation sometimes mildly humorous articles were a pain in the proverbial, if editors have the ability and intelligence to write long convoluted humorous articles then they could if persuaded maybe help the project. Hence for things like this it was deemed it may not be best way to bring them over to the good side if we instantly call them a vandal. Even though it is vandalism it's not always necessary to reach for the big V templates straight away. If you issue two joke templates and finish with a V4 what harm has it done if it ends in a block anyway, but if the editor start contributing positively to wikipedia, for taking a more tactile approach instead of authoritarian we have a net gain. Some of you may wish to read this discussion at AIV. ^Khukri 11:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wording of template:uw-legal

It seems to me that applying the {{uw-legal}} warning frequently results in complaints from the recipient that it's a bogus warning because wikipedia cannot prevent their use of legal counsel, resulting in someone here needing to clarify that the template actually means that if they choose to take legal action, we cannot prevent it; but we require that they do not edit Wikipedia until the legal issue has been resolved both to prevent the threat from being leveraged as intimidation against others; as well as to ensure that the issue is dealt with entirely through proper legal channels and not on Wikipedia itself. Granted the linked policy also clarifies this, but it seems that rather than follow the link, people react to the warning's text of "Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility."

Wouldn't we save all parties concerned some extra frustration if we re-worded the warning template to say what is truly meant? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What is your proposed replacement? EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about a few different complete re-writes on the warning; but I supose the simplest would be just to modify the one sentence to read "Please note continuing to edit or post within Wikipedia while engaging in legal action is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to make the change myself; but due to the high visibility, I would prefer to have discussion on it first to verify consensus supports the change. Proposed change:

Current:

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution.

Proposed:

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that continuing to edit or post within Wikipedia while engaging in legal action is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution.

Any opinions on this change? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed language might work well with respect to threats of litigation against Wikimedia Foundation. However, most of the legal threats that I have encountered are threats against individual editors (e.g., "Persons who make further edits to this article will be tracked down and subjected to litigation"), in which case it is necessary and appropriate to say "this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility." --160.91.24.33 (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the proposed revision is worth doing. It's over-cautious, and it's not even complete, since we don't want them editing Wikipedia while *threatening* not just *while actually following through*. WE can't tell people not to seek legal redress if they want to. Surely that is sufficiently obvious that it doesn't require us to underline it in the actual text of the warning. If the editor for whom you leave the {{uw-legal}} warning responds in a puzzled fashion, you can explain the problem at that time. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's the problem, from my experience it's the majority of the time that they respond that we have no right to restrict their access to seek legal action (not just from me applying to template, which has been rare - I usually walk into the conversation after someone else has applied the template. I'll write up a disclaimer for myself, that I'll just get into the habit of applying at the same time that I need to use uw-legal. My proposed change may not be ideal, but neither is the current state. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Italicize

I went ahead and redirected this template to {{Uw-italicize}}. It appeared to serve the exact same purpose anyway. PC78 (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

square brackets in user - welcome?

Have a look at user welcome templates. Some are listed with square brackets; is that right? {{subst:W-basic]]}}</br> {{subst:W-link]]}}
Dan Beale-Cocks 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No clue why they are there, but looking at the past 100 revisions, the extra brackets have been there since at least November 2007. Very odd ... --Kralizec! (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia template

Should the entry for uw-trivia be removed since the template was deleted? swaq 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea go ahead, but I'm a bit more concerned that no-one around here was informed about it's deletion. ^Khukri 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-aiv}} update

Per extensive discussion on AIV talk, the AIV user warning template has been rewritten. Just a notice as to what has happened. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the words "good faith" link to WP:AGF? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with that, I'll add it in now. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 07:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)  Doing...

 Done Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 07:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Uw-delete vs. BLP.

Can the Uw-delete templates please be ammended to indicate that deleting unsourced info is not only allowed but actually encouraged? People are for instance deleting unsourced text from articles about themselves, only to have regular editors continuously putting the unsourced text back. The subjects of articles are actually following wp:v and wp:blp (but sometimes not putting in edit summaries) and the people who should know better are ignoring two of the absolutely most important policies on WP. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-05t16:26z, -- Jeandré, 2008-04-05t21:26z

No problems at all, I would suggest maybe mentioning the BLP issue in the level 1 template, asking that deletions are discussed either before or unless there are serious issues after the deletion. Though from what I've seen I will say the BLP issues are few and far between in comparison to the run of the mill deletion vandalism, but just have a higher profile. ^Khukri 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-delete1}} was changed on April 19 to add the word 'sourced', citing this discussion. This makes the template useless for talking to users who are deleting unsourced but verifiable (if not verified) material without edit summaries. Perhaps there is another wording that would satisfy Jeandré's concern. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This has basically made the template useless. We'll have to use v1 now for blanking of pages and removal of unsourced material. Corvus cornix_talk 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have boldly removed the "sourced" wording. It is entirely possible to disruptively remove material from a non-BLP article, which is itself unsourced, and not at all BLP related. Indeed, uw-delete1 only asks for uses to explain themselves; even in deleting unsourced BLP material, an edit summary or talk page note is still needed... without that explanation, we have no idea why material was removed. The use of the word "sourced" in the template makes it seem like any material not directly cited by footnotes can be removed from any article at any time without problem, this is decidedly NOT the case... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I agree with both the revert and the reasoning. It's a great template for unexplained removal of content.--Kubigula (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

wp:v: "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies."

wp:v: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

wp:v: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. –Jimmy Wales"

-- Jeandré, 2008-04-23t20:18z

All true. And if an editor wants to remove questionable unsourced info, all he or she needs to do is explain that in the edit summary or drop a note on the talk page. However, if someone removes a paragraph (or more) of content without explanation, that's a problem. We have no idea if it's a legitimate edit to clean up the article or simple vandalism, and that's the situation this template was designed for.--Kubigula (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem with removing content is unexplained removal. There are many good reasons to remove content from an article. There are no good reasons to do so without explaining WHY you are doing so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The good reason is that newbies are removing libel and then getting these warnings for following the common sense wp:blp and wp:v, but not knowing about edit summaries. wp:blp and wp:v are much, much more important than edit summaries. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-26t20:26z

Question: How do you know that they are removing libel, and not just randomly removing chunks of text from an article? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You can have a look at what was removed, but even if it's not libel, wp:v allows anyone to remove unsourced text and states "It [unsourced info] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Changing the warnings to indicate that removing of well sourced info is a problem, will massively reduce people from incorrectly getting the warnings for correctly following wp:v and wp:blp. If edit summaries are the problem there's {{Editsummary}}, {{Summary}}, and {{Summary2}}. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-27t19:16z

The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-birthday. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Author's note

Yes, this is something of a joke, but I have already used it twice in the couple of days since I created it. "Birthday" vandalism is so common that I once made a request on WP:AN to semiprotect all date articles such as February 15 because of excessive vandalism. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

See User:Mufka/uw-date1 and User:Mufka/uw-date2-- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-spamublock. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Graphic

How come we're using the old style stop sign graphic on this one? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, boldly fixed it. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 09:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-ublock. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

General template?

It says that this is a general template, however, I don't think there is a more specific template for this than this one, is there? In any case, there are no more specific templates on the page that the message points to. --JoanneB 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-latin characters?

This seems like a borderline guideline for usernames, and inappropriate as a reason for blocking someone or as a potential reason given in this message. Can we remove that section? If it suggests anywhere that having non-latin chars is a reason for blocking a username, we should change that. +sj + 04:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should characters like ∠ or ♣ be permitted in usernames? Usernames must consist of characters that may be typed on an English keyboard or, in allowance of multi-wiki users or single-user login, on some keyboard. Someone should not need to copy and paste a username or find a Unicode character reference to refer to a user. —Centrx→talk • 07:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See the Username policy, which states the following. If you wish to remove the clause, you should discuss on the policy talk page instead.

Names with non-Latin characters: Unfortunately, most of your fellow editors will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts. Many of them will also be additionally burdened, as such names may be displayed for them only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or worse, nonsense or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is usually written in a non-Latin script, please consider transliterating it to avoid confusion, and allow easier access to your talk page by typing your name in the search field or URL bar.

—[admin] Pathoschild 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an advice, and I have just deprecated it on that page. This might only be appropriate for new usernames made specifically for editing on en.wikipedia.

Note that people who have accounts on multiple wikimedia projects might have a non-latin username from that other project. These people will often have a proven track-record, and should not be blocked.

Once (when.. in some forseeable future) single user login is implemented, en.wikipedia will allow a huge number of non-latin-character usernames to log in, whether you want to or not. Unilaterally blocking people from other wikis is definately not going to be the answer!

Blocking people from other wikis is *simply not fair*. What if wikis in other character sets started blocking latin1 people? That would be stupid. Who can do transwiki and translation work (VERY IMPORTANT!) after that?

Please discuss as per WP:BRD.

Kim Bruning 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Username block

Following a discussion over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Acceptable username policy I took a look at the template used for blocking new users whose names are inappropriate (too similar to another user's name, contain improper characters, etc) and it seemed to me that the current template is pretty harsh, and may scare well-meaning new users away. So, I tried to put myself in the shoes of a new user (not so tough, as in many ways I still am one) and redesigned the template to address this issue. My proposed template, along with a copy of the original template, can be seen at User:Badger151/templates. Please stop by and leave your thoughts on that page's talk page. Thanks --Badger151 23:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Although the message could be more cordial, your proposal is far too soft (particularly the emoticon). I've softened the wording to a lesser degree at User:Pathoschild/Sandbox2. What do you think of that one? —[admin] Pathoschild 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I placed a link to your template over at User talk:Badger151/templates, since a few comments had also come in there. --Badger151 02:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit to template

Could an admin add {{TestTemplatesNotice}} to the template (obviously in a <noinclude> section)? Several other templates on {{TestTemplates}} have them, and it'd be nice to have this sort of standardized. EVula 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been my pleasure to fulfill your request. Let me know if I need anything else... er, whatever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Steel's changes

I like them. The red octagon was too harsh, this is better. pschemp | talk 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template

What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected), is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.

That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.

If you enter:   {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}}
you get:

Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

(and the rest of the template stays the same)

Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding link to WP:RFCN archive

If the username was blocked following a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, you may wish to link to the archive of that discussion, for instance:

{{unb|1="1337 H4XZ0R" falls under [[WP:USERNAME#Trouble|"usernames that... give the impression that you intend to cause trouble here, such as by alluding to hacking"]], and was disallowed by [http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=WP:RFCN&oldid=119514027#1337_H4XZ0R_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 a discussion at WP:RFCN]}}

Notice in the above that, since the URL includes equal signs, you need to declare the parameter explicitly with "1=". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts for RFC-related templates

Khukri of the user-warnings project had suggested:"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase."   Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding {{UsernameBlocked}} already had shortcut {{unb}}, I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since {{ucr}} and {{unc}} were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:

(edit view)

RFC-related templates and shortcuts:

Template	lowercase	rfc- prefix	short	rfc- prefix	Parameters, (req)uired or (opt)ional
{{ArticleDiscussion}}	{{articlediscussion}}	{{rfc-articlediscussion}}	{{artd}}	{{rfc-ard}}	article name (req)
{{ArticleResult}}	{{articleresult}}	{{rfc-articleresult}}	{{artr}}	{{rfc-arr}}	article name (req), outcome of RFC (opt)
{{UsernameConcern}}	{{usernameconcern}}	{{rfc-usernameconcern}}	{{uncon}}	{{rfc-unc}}	nature of objection (opt)
{{UsernameDiscussion}}	{{usernamediscussion}}	{{rfc-usernamediscussion}}	{{und}}	{{rfc-und}}	name issue in discussion (opt)
{{UsernameNotice}}	{{usernamenotice}}	{{rfc-usernamenotice}}	{{un}}	{{rfc-unn}}	RFC/NAME subject's name (req)
{{UsernameAllowed}}	{{usernameallowed}}	{{rfc-usernameallowed}}	{{una}}	{{rfc-una}}	archived RFC's "oldid=#" (opt)
{{UsernameBlocked}}	{{usernameblocked}}	{{rfc-usernameblocked}}	{{unb}}	{{rfc-unb}}	reason for block (opt)

All these templates (except {{UsernameBlocked}}) will automatically add your signature, unless you add the optional parameter sig=n.

That should save a bit of typing time. -- Ben 09:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editprotected}}

This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! Neil (not Proto ►) 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editprotected}}

I am requesting that a minor change be made to this template of changing where it says Wikipedia:Username to Wikipedia:Username policy, because it's been redirected to that, and it may confuse some editors to leave it the way it is.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that redirect errors like that, spelling mistakes, capitalization errors, etc. are haven't been looked to be a big deal at Wikipedia, so I understand on the other hand if the request is declinded. I still thought it could possibly be helpful as far as minor edits go to consider it.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Cbrown1023 talk 21:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Another edit request

{{editprotected}}

I read the above comments and one of the things that has not been documented in the template directions is that you can use "{{usernameblock|reason for block}}" to specify a specific reason why the name was blocked. This should be added. - Hdt83 | Talk 20:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 Not done There is no good place to put that and most administrators know or can figure it out already. (and most administrator's wouldn't fill that paramater out even if they knew it was there) Cbrown1023 talk 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit request from Tellyaddict (talk · contribs)

{{editprotected}} I would like to change it so it says Your account has been blocked indefinitely as a result of your inappropriate username instead of Your username has been blocked indefinitely as the actual account is blocked and not just the username, this to avoid confusion.Tellyaddict 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the text seems to confuse "username" with "account". It would be simpler if it just used the word "username" everywhere (because there is no account apart from the associated username). But I rephrased it just a little to make the first sentence match the rest of the text. CMummert · talk 11:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Blocked Indefinitely"

{{tl|editprotected} The words "Blocked indefinitely" in the UsernameBlocked template should be bold faced again

Done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editprotected}}

Please revert the boldface on 'blocked indefinitely' per WP:BITE, as it may scare newcomers off. Thanks. Cheers, Mystytopia 00:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's biting, but just bolding the main information of the template, which can be useful to locate it on a sometimes non-empty talkpage. -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lucasbfr - the bold makes it easy to get the point quickly while scanning the page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block for "Wikipedia"

{{editprotected}} The prohibition on "Wikipedia" no longer appears in WP:U. It now reads, "... Usernames that confusingly refer to a Wikipedia process, namespace, or toolbar item."

Wording should be changed to reflect this: Change: "...contains the word Wikipedia or the name of any other Wikimedia Foundation project..." to: "... refers to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace...". Just a suggestion. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Mysekurity 11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

semi protected

This template is no longer fully protected, since all the other UW templates are semi protected. I am not sure whether or not many people watch this page, but if you want information about the WP:UW templates, please leave a note at WT:UW. Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Category

When used on a user talk page (surely the most common form of usage) this page puts the page into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages which in turn suggests that the page be deleted. This seems like a poor idea to me, part of the reason for such a msg is to form a lasting record of the blockage and its reason. Why is this category used, and would anyone object to removing it from this template? DES ^(talk) 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my request for objections before removing the category from the template. DES ^(talk) 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hell no, keep that one! Apparently these pages are deleted after a month, keep in mind that the block message is still viewable when the user tries to edit. That's an easy way to delete the (unused) talk pages of blocked users when they left. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Color

I really don't like the new color/layout of the template. This one isn't a "get lost" template ... it should be more informational, not have a scare color. This template is for someone who made a disallowed username in good faith - we don't want a big yellow get lost message on the page. Would anyone have any severe heartburn with changing it back? It really does look hideous. --B 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that it is also routinely used for people who created an improper username in apparent bad-faith. DES ^(talk) 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If I'm correct, without the color the templates appears with a pink background in the "You're blocked" interface, not the best either. The orange is just the same color than the other uw-block templates, and the div class can be used if you tweak your monobook. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

This is the current design:

Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. Wikipedia:Username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account.

Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible.

• If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new username, please follow these directions:

1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked.
3. You will have 24 hours after the unblock to file a request on Wikipedia:Changing username before you may be re-blocked. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is much easier to create a new account.

• If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on your user talk page or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

but I feel it should be like this:

Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (please see our blocking and username policies for more information).

You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. Wikipedia:Username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account.

Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible.

• If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new username, please follow these directions:

1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you still have the ability to edit your own talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked.
3. You will have 24 hours after the unblock to file a request on Wikipedia:Changing username before you may be re-blocked. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is much easier to create a new account.

• If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on your user talk page or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

I have made some small changes to the template above here - before I change this high-use template, I would like to gain consensus first. I'm not sure the border looks right for this template: it may do so for others, but for this one, it looks ugly.

Feel free to discuss the above changes I've proposed. --SunStar Net ^talk 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC) --SunStar Net ^talk 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Update to wording

I've updated the wording, which was unnecessarily lengthy, and a bit BITEy. The main audience for this message is especially, users who have never edited before, or are creating new accounts, so it matters above average not to deter or even accidentally, BITE. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-uhblock. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requested edit

{{editprotected}}

Please change 'Your account has been blocked indefinitely' to 'Your username has been blocked indefinitely'. Thanks. Cheers, Mystytopia 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm unsure - such blocks are "hard blocks" so really we are blocking the account as opposed to {{usernameblocked}} GDonato (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the edit protected request for now. (Please readd it if there is a consensus on this issue.) I think the wording is better as it is, though I have no strong opinions either way. The most important thing, in my view, is that this template not promise to unblock the user if they say they want to change their name or anything like that - this template is for users who are making obviously trolling names and should never be used for someone who is acting in good faith. --BigΔT 19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is better as it is. ElinorD (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this needed?

I'd like to suggest consideration for removing this template, but I'd like to chat about it here before taking to TfD. A username block should be just that, a username block. Blocking a person because of an inappropriate username (no matter how trollish) goes against the grain of Wikipedia, nowhere else do we essentially BAN people from the project for a single poor decision. Just because someone makes an extraordinarily bad username doesn't mean they're going to be a troll or disruptor, plenty of folks make outrageous names or statements casually without intention to disrupt, and we are not equipped with crystal balls. Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• A name such as User:ChairboyIsGay does deserve immediate blocking as 9/10 times it's a sockpuppet and it seriously violates WP:NPA, that is the scope of the template and it's use is (or should be) limited to that. GDonato (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I'm not talking about username blocking in general, it's the hard blocking that I object to (Account creation disabled, autoblock enabled, etc). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If a new user with a nice inoffensive name like Mary Jones (I haven't checked to see if there is such a user) immediately begins to post your real name and phone number all over Wikipedia, we block Mary Jones with account creation disabled. If someone registers an account called User:Chairboy's real name is X and his phone number is 1234567, we also block with account creation disabled. Really offensive usernames are not made by people who are going to want to make useful edits tomorrow. And if the usernames are deliberate, stalkerish privacy violations, then the editor is certainly not a newcomer who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia. In any case, as far as I know, blocking the IP does not mean that the user can never create a new account — just that they have to wait a few days. ElinorD (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • A note, my IP address stays the same for months at a time, and it's a dynamic IP, so the penalty we're talking about here can be pretty dang big for the transgression, and for many users amounts to a lifetime ban from Wikipedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There are times when hardblocking based on usernames in necessary and appropriate. We're talking usernames that make it clear in themselves that the user is her to cause trouble. I would give the following as appropriate cases for immediate username hardblocks:

• Usernames involving racism or other hate speech
  • User:Faggot Killer 88 卍卐 卍卐
  • User:KillAllNiggers
  • User:Niggers stink like shit
• Usernames attacking other users/administrators
  • User:F*ckalladminsintheass
  • User:Misza13 is a fuckhead crony
• Usernames advocating outrageous POV e.g. the support of terrorism
  • User:Semtex set Ireland free
  • User:Jews are responsible for all wars in the world.
• Usernames involving strong profanity
  • User:Cuntbitchfuck
  • User:Fuck Nigga Pussy Cock Sex Gangbang Anal Terrorism

Username hardblocks should be used sparingly but are sometimes necessary. WjBscribe 17:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are all good username blocks, but a lifetime ban from the project is pretty heavy medicine, and there's the assumption that these people can never ever contribute constructively to the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it a lifetime ban? Autoblocks wear off after 2 days... WjBscribe 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Does 'Account Creation Blocked' wear off in two days as well? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it does - we can't indefintely prevent the creation of accounts from a given IP without blocking the IP itself... WjBscribe 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both wear off after a couple days. Until(1 == 2) 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The original reason I created this template is that we need something that doesn't invite the user to create a new account. If someone is repeatedly creating accounts attacking random admins, using {{unb}} as the block message doesn't make sense. --B 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is serving its purpose well. Until(1 == 2) 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-voablock. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unpropper

I don't think the text further action may be taken against you. to be proper in this context. As we all knwon, threads only encourage vandals. Mariano(t/c) 08:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the text

Please do not create further accounts for the purpose of vandalism; if you do so, further action may be taken against you.

because it basically amounts to WP:BEANS - that is, we're telling them that if they want to vandalise further, they just have to create another account. "Further action may be taken against you" is an obviously hollow threat. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit to template

Could an admin add {{TestTemplatesNotice}} to the template (obviously in a <noinclude> section)? Test0-Test2 have them, and it'd be nice to have this sort of standardized (though this is a lot less of an issue for admin-only templates, as they probably know to subst it). EVula 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected the template, go ahead and make your edits. JYolkowski // talk 20:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic, danke. EVula 00:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Use after one edit

This template has been used, in a number of cases, after a single edit. Granted, in those cases the edit in question was obvious vandalism on an article that receives a great deal of vandal attention. However, the text of the template implies a decision has been reached, based on a pattern of activity. When used on the talk page of a user who has only ever edited Wikipedia once it doesn't make a lot of sense. Either a new template should be used in such cases, or the language in this template should be changed. Example: [13] -Harmil 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Template restored after change

A change was made to this template on 17 Dec, without discussion. I only discovered this after using the template for blocking of a vandalism-only account. When it rendered after subst, it did not say provide the words that I expected, nor completely give the editor the reason for the block. "Vandalism only" is a slightly different reason than "persistent vandalism"; and in fact, in the blocking page, "vandalism" and "vandalism-only" are separate choices in the drop down reason. For that reason, I'm restoring it to the previous version. Please discuss any changes here as this change potential affects many admins. — ERcheck (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ow, to be honest I didn't think the wording would be an issue. I don't think it is such a good idea to have so many templates, but I don't feel strongly about it :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Level 4 warnings

The level 4 warnings all seem to state that the next incidence of vandalism or other disruption will result in a block. I was wondering whether non-admins are allowed to use these templates since non-admins do not actually have the ability to block even if they see more disruptive editing. --Hydraton31 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The idea is to give the level four warning then take the matter to WP:AIV if vandalism continues. Just be sure you are using the warning for obvious vandalism, or they won't get blocked and you lose a little credibility.--Kubigula (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remember this whenever I have the chance to go on recent changes patrol (hopefully a bit more next month!). --Hydraton31 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)