Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 9

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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 →

Spelling

Can we change the word "vandalize" in uw-vand3 and 4 to something which is used in both British and American English. How about "if you continue to make unconstructive edits such as vandalism" rather than "if you continue to vandalize" --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Webster lists both, but calls "vandalise" a "British variant"; Oxford lists both, but "vandalise" last. Looks to me like "vandalize" is the preferred form all over. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very rare here in the UK, and becoming even rarer all the time. Most British people consider "-ise" to be the only correct spelling. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, my copy of Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary is growing old; if this is "becoming even rarer all the time", it won't automagically reflect that. Consider my objection withdrawn. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Any further issues? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to know why we always use the American spelling. I want to point out that the English speaking world (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc use the British spelling rules. That what we learn in school, until... we use a computer with a spelling checker!!! I think we need to have laws passed that when you get a new computer you MUST set the country, and stop using US as the default. Now, getting back to the topic. How do we insure the "favour", "vandalise" spelling is available to use?CubBC (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What if we changed {{uw-v3}} to, "If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." Perhaps {{uw-v4}} could be changed to, "This is the last warning you will receive for your vandalism. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing."--Kubigula (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is decided upon make sure 1) It works well with the wording change in the thread below about lvl3 templates, 2) that any changes like this are across the board i.e. block, delete templates etc. ^Khukri 06:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it, Kubigula. One thing, I don't like the way they say "vandalize Wikipedia" or "Distrupt Wikipedia" Because the implication that the vandal is harming Wikipedia could encourage them. I suggest just leaving it at "the next time you edit disruptively" rather than "the next time you disrupt Wikipedia". The Dominator^Talk_Edits 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to level three and level four templates

Based on the concerns/issues above, I propose changing the text of {{uw-v3}} to:

• Please stop editing disruptively. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing.

In addition, I propose changing the text of {{uw-v4}} to:

• This is the last warning you will receive. Any further vandalism will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please raise any objections or issues. If there are none, I plan to make similar changes to the other level three and four warnings for consistency.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

v3 not sure I'm keen on the first sentence, v4 no probs. As I said above what we do on the V series has to be across the board. The wording is very similar if not identical to templates like the deletes {{uw-d3}} & {{uw-d4}}, OR {{uw-nor3}} & {{uw-nor4}} to mention a couple and I'm sure there's more. A couple of other examples;

• Please stop your disruptive editing.
• Please discontinue trying to disrupt Wikipedia.
• Please do not continue trying to disrupt Wikipedia
• Please stop or I'm going to find where you live and kick your door/teeth in.

^Khukri 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion - "Please stop your disruptive editing" is better for V3, though your last one has a certain appeal too!--Kubigula (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody else feel uneasy about the use of "disrupt Wikipedia" or "vandalize Wikipedia", to me it just seems like we're making his edits out to be disturbing all of Wikipedia, and the word "trying" just seems strange in there, I suggest leaving the entire "Wikipedia" part out. Please tell me somebody else feels this. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, though I don't feel as strongly about it as you do. That's why I like the, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing." version.--Kubigula (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good one, also eliminates the ambiguity between American and British spellings. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've made the changes to V3 and V4. I'll wait to see if there are any objections now that these changes are in the wild, before adjusting the other level threes and fours for consistency.--Kubigula (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but could we change the part that says "such as the edit you made to Example" to "Such as the one you made to Example" and "disruptive editing" to "disruptive edits", it just sounds a bit better to me, could be wrong though. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - overlooked your comment until now. I think "stop your disruptive editing" is more grammatically correct than "stop your disruptive edits". "Stop making disruptive edits" would work, though.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Any Warnings for "posting of copyrighted material (excluding pictures)"

I don't see them, and was wondering if I just overlooked them, or if they don't exist yet.

Spinach Dip 03:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I am refering specifically to this[1] edit, which posts a (large) excerpt from an upcoming book, even though there is already a warning one line above asking editors to not do this.

Just wondering.

Spinach Dip 03:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think {{uw-copyright}} should cover it, since it warns against both text and images. Nufy8 (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just overlooked it! Thanks!

Spinach Dip 03:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of the subst parameter?

I notice that these templates take a "subst" parameter, and conditionally subst part of their output. For example, {{subst:uw-vandalism3|Page name}} produces output that includes {{#if:...}}. If you instead use {{subst:uw-vandalism3|Page name|subst=subst:}} then the output doesn't contain the ugly {{#if:...}} stuff.

Why do these templates need a parameter to switch between the two behaviours? I would have thought that it would make sense to unconditionally use the "subst"-style. If the problem is that the authors of these templates didn't know how to do so, then I believe that code like this will do the trick: {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:...}}. The includeonly tags prevent the subst: from taking effect when you edit the template, but it takes effect when you use the template. —AlanBarrett 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Block standardization

A lot of the templates in Category:User block templates are non-standard. I've nommed those that aren't linked to an active project for deletion, but some look like their still in use and need to be standardized. I plead ignorance on how to code complex templates, so could someone help me go through them and standardize those that should be kept? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A level 5 warning

I have designed a lvl 5 warning and I was going to discuss it on the talk page before including it here and in the warning series. As I'm not an administrator I find vandals who have already received their final warning and leaving a further "final" warning after that while waiting for administrative attention is always a bit frustrating. I took the Template:Uw-3rr4 idea and applied it to general vandalism, and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or objections on the matter.

Template can be found here. An example in use can be found here. I'm interested in all input, so fire away. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm a nub so if this needs to be deleted or something it won't hurt my feelings folks. Pip pip tally ho. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not too sure about it. It really does depend on the time since the last warning was issued. A 3 day old "final" warning to an anon, really shouldn't automatically be considered as the same person. Mind if I tweak it a bit though? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I welcome you to do whatever with it you feel is prudent. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had a look at it, I'm not too sure about it though. I feel it might be a step in the wrong direction, and could be misused. You see, it might become a commonly used template, and I feel it has the potential to be misused. It's also a bit bitey, even persistent vandals, we shouldn't be bitey towards. It's just my opinion, however, but I know I'm not alone in it. RC patrollers are becoming rather aggressive, and I just think this might egg them on more, so to speak. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There was one of these back in the day. Forget what it was called, but it fell outta disuse, since how many times can we say "OK, this time I MEAN IT!". Once the word "block" has been mentioned in a warning, the vandal should stop. If they don't, any admin can block away. Not sure droping a level 5 warning really adds that much to it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, terrible idea to have more warning levels. If anything I'd suport 3 levels before 5. Wizardman 06:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

After actually looking at the template, I see what the creator was going for, but since th time between the block and report is usually prett small, i dunno what it would accomplish. Wizardman 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually it is, yes. But in cases where someone is spamming excessively and quickly often times they will get in several such edits before administrative attention reaches it, and it's quite frustrating to have "this is your final warning" "er....this is another final warning" "we mean it this time. final warning." I thought it was better to have an "Alright, we warned you..." available.

I will say for my part that I agree about the warning levels, but usually I just go 2-3-4 and have that be my 3-level system. Usually when someone is deleting whole pages and replacing them with "this guy is gay" there's no need for a "your test edit worked!" warning. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates like this (you better watch out, you're at AIV now) have been deleted at TFD before as ineffectual, and not really having any point. I could pull up the discussions if you want. Gracenotes^T § 16:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, that would be helpful yes.

I'd like to also mention that the only reason I am even suggesting this template is out of personal frustration at it not being there in instances I have found it would have been appropriate. But I can accept that so far the idea doesn't seem very popular. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The template that got the most use prior to its deletion was Template:Non-admin fwarn; see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 23#Template:Non-admin fwarn. Gracenotes^T § 16:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WjBscribe's argument for deletion was compelling. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Grouping by month

Although it is only implied in this page, it seems to be convention (including that of Cluebot) to place warnings under a month heading from the very first warning. This seems gratuitously bite-happy. It conveys the impression that a file has now been opened on the user, who is expected to be a repeat offender. I propose that the guideline is revised to require categorisation from the second warning onwards. Sound sensible? BigBlueFish (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's an impression one would get initially. I don't even think that most new editors think immediately about the fact that other editors can see messages left to them. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. They may even get the impression that grouping ALL messages by date is standard. Thats an equally reasonable conclusion to make. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not when the months are meant to be subheadings of a larger "Warnings" heading... BigBlueFish (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So you'd prefer it didn't say they are warnings? May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the context of a user who receives one warning. From what I've seen, this often constitutes people accidentally blanking a page or creating a non-notable article before they understand the rules. It is unnecessary to respond to this by opening an organised catalogue of their errors. The warnings themselves are purposefully designed to be polite and personal rather than boilerplate-ish, so that the first reads as kind advice to the user. The way they are currently headed (by convention; I myself do not) violates the spirit of this. It is important to note that the current wording concerns "grouping" of warnings. It presumes a first warning already and so is currently ambiguous whatever consensus we arrive at. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So, to give a more pragmatic and direct answer to your question, no, I think the heading scheme should continue to be recommended, but that the first warning be unheaded or come under a descriptive heading, replaced by the header/month combination in the event of subsequent warnings. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly agree in that regard. I can see why the suggested route is the way it is, but of course I tend to view it on more of a case-by-case basis myself, so in a lot of instances I don't find it applicable. The month heading, however, I think is still appropriate. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A new template

Hey people, yesterday i brought up an issue at the LGBT wikiproject. Im not a member myself but i thought this was quite important. I noticed that wikipedia has a template aimed at fighting racist edits yet there is no such template for edits against sexual orientation. As both are just as bad as one another and since discrimination does (unfortunately) occure on wikipedia we need a template that is used in the same manner as the racism template. The consensus was that a template is needed and there seems to be an agreement that no harm can come of it. I would like you to read the following link and help impliment a new template that will hopefully be taken as seriously as the racism template. This is the link. Cheers. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I hadn't even noticed that the racism template had cropped up again. We used to have both racism and homophobia templates, but there was pretty clear consensus against having these kind of specialized warning templates. You can view the previous TfD discussions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_8#Template:uw-racism and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_8#Template:uw-homophobia. Consensus can change, but I personally still agree with the sentiments in those TfD discussion. Hate speech of any kind is vandalism and should be dealt with aggressively as such. I believe these kind of speciality templates can be counterproductive in that they suggest to the vandal that they are getting to us. IMO, it's better to deny any kind of recognition for this kind of garbage.--Kubigula (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As discussed over at WT:LGBT, there is a fair amount of homophobic vandalism, and it would be nice to have a specific specific warning template to use on the pages of editors who perpetrate such. Aleta ^Sing 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, i believe admins take discrimination templates more seriously and therefore the editer gets fewer warnings. I would not be in favour of removing the racism template and would support a LGBT template. Maybe its time for a new consensus discussion. Either we have both or none. I would rather both though lol. Besides that was exactly a year ago right, maybe its time to see if views have changed. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we just create a general discrimination/hate speech template per the views of some of those editers in the links you provided. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a general "disparagement" warning, since while admins may take racial/hate speech more seriously (at least I'm quicker to block), its not enshrined that way in policy, and would create too many extra warning templates. MBisanz ^talk 18:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Disparagement against hate speech, discrimination, vandalism, all of the above? Thats quite broad, could you clarify please? Cheers ;-) Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean the it should warn users to not make disparaging remarks about groups of individuals who share a common relating factor (ethinic, sexual, racial, etc). We have NPA for individuals on their own, so this would be an expansion of that. MBisanz ^talk 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes im in favour of a general template that includes all "minority groups". That way we only need one template. We also need to consider if it should be a levelled process of warnings or just 1 level template. Also should there be a difference between writting "Michael Jackson is a N..." and actually calling an editer a N...? One is a racist form of vandalism, the other is a racist person attack. ThoughtsRealist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the MJ one is a BLP-violation, clean and simple, the later is an NPA on an editor, clean and simple. I'm thinking more generally when say on an article about the cvil rights movement, someone starts off about "them Ns didn't stay in their place" etc. MBisanz ^talk 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK so it would be discriminatory edits on articles or persons?Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect articles (content) would be the best focus, since in theory we won't ever need to discuss an editor's group affiliation in such a manner and it owuld be covered by NPA. MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, should it be levelled or 1 template? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say follow the "Defamation not specifically directed" template to make it "Group Disparagement". MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i mean, how many warnings do they get before a block, with vandalism there are 5 chances. Do the warnings get more severe or is it a case of "you do it again and your out"? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd follow the 1-4+4im model, admin's have discretion to deal with these things in any event. MBisanz ^talk 19:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so at the minute we have decided to remove the racism template, have a general template for all minorities and for it to follow the 1-4+4im model. Does anyone oppose this? If not we should get down to figuring out the exact wordings for these 5 templates. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sold. When you're dealing with hateful vandalism, I think having a specific response template only serves to recognize and feed the vandalism. I don't see a compelling reason why we can't deal with it like regular vandalism, albeit more aggressively. Personally, if it's virulent and hateful vandalism, I skip right to a level 3 or 4im warning. I also don't think admins pay more attention to the type of template - the key is whether the vandal has been warned appropriately (i.e. reached a level 3 or 4) and is continuing to vandalize. Finally, I suggest waiting a bit to see if there are other thoughts or ideas before you start working on the wording.--Kubigula (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, let others join in, theres no rush. If there was a policy that said "if its discriminatory vandalism jump to warning 3" i would agree with you. However different people react differently and might follow the 1-5 levels exactly, i used to. However if there is a warning and an admin can see that someone has been warned not only for vandalism but discrimination, almost all admins will react more aggressively towards it. Its not to give the vandal/bigot notoriety, its for others to take note that this is a little more serious than adding dick randomly in an article. Thats my view anyways. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree with these templates. From the encyclopedia point of view, vandalism is vandalism no matter if the content matter is derogatory about a certain section of the public or not. For me if it's serious enough it comes under WP:RBI, they know they've transgressed, waving a rainbow flag at them whilst shout homophobia just encourages it in my opinion. Their edits are vandalism and we should just treat it as thus. ^Khukri 22:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What if someone does attack an editer in a homophobic manner? Leaving a warning saying "oh do be civil dear" is hardly going to be taken as serious by an admin. I was always more in support of using it in the case of person attacks anyway. Calling someone a N*gger to their face is a little more than incivil. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing else to add anyone? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah if it's a personal attack then it's not vandalism, you'd use the NPA series. There are many groups of people that are targetted by bigots or have hate attacks against them, but this still doesn't mean one attack is more more serious than another and there is no need to identify one with it's own templating system over any other. It's simple, revert, warning and block if necessary, it does not need undue attention brought to it by it's own template. ^Khukri 14:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

ECAlso commenting on above as an admin, I tend to block on sight these forms of attacks as do many admins. Also we take any template issued seriously, so to assume that just because someone was issued with {{uw-npa1}} means wouldn't be taken seriously is not correct. Also there is nothing stopping anyone going straight to {{uw-npa4im}} if they thought the personal attack warranted it.

You realise this would mean removing the racism template? We cant has a double standard? Its the last thing i want to see. ;-(Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also added above during edit conflict. I would have no problems with that at all. If you look through the history you'll see that's always been my position. Put it up for WP:TFD if you wish. ^Khukri 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the uw-racism template was deleted a year ago here ^Khukri 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, racially motivated edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others.

Or not lol. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted {{uw-ra}} as a re-creation of {{uw-racism}} and there was no discussion about it's recreation. ^Khukri 21:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but if i see that racism template pop back up im starting this dscussion again lol. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP and delete templates

I see some discussion above about better handling the case of a new editor removing BLP violations, but it doesn't seem to have led to significant change. As I discuss here, maybe we should use the "delete" templates to push people with BLP concerns at either WP:BLPN or WP:OTRS, so that someone else can assist them. Bovlb (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a concrete proposal. To each of {{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}}, {{uw-delete4}}, and {{uw-delete4im}} add the sentence:

If you are attempting to correct a problem with the article, go here for advice and assistance.

Bovlb (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This note would be best added to all templates that are likely to be used on such an editor, so I'm going to include {{uw-3rr}}. Bovlb (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to indicate on the warnings that removing (and therefore challenging) "sourced" info is a problem, so the warnings won't apply to the blanking of unsourced or poorly sourced info - even if the newbies didn't include edit summaries in cleaning up the libel on articles about themselves. -- Jeandré, 2008-05-19t00:43z

uw-username

At the moment, when used with a parameter, the template looks as follows:

...it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: {{{1}}}.

Would it not look far cleaner if the reason text were added without breaking the sentence, similar to when other user warning templates are used with parameters? Something like the following might look better:

...it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy because {{{1}}}.

I didn't want to make the modification without discussion first, but it does make the template look less mechanical. haz (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Anomie⚔ 16:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

uw-template series

I notice {{uw-template1}} was TFDed almost a year ago. {{uw-template2/3/4/4im}} were included in the same TFD, but were never taken care of. Would an admin here care to do so? Anomie⚔ 13:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks for bring it up. ^Khukri 14:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB request

If anyone has access to AWB or some similar permission to make automated edits, we have 234 talk pages on uw-* templates that previous discussion determined should be redirected here. I've made a list in my sandbox (plain text or wikilinked), all someone needs to do is run through and create the redirect for each page. I'd throw together a script to do it myself, but I gather that's not recommended. If no one here wants to do it, let me know and I'll take it to WP:BOTREQ. Anomie⚔ 03:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just plow through it by hand. Anomie⚔ 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Level 4 warnings: An idea

(Forgive me if this has already been discussed.)

The Problem: Often, when a user vandalizes after a final, level 4 warning, they are simply given another warning, rather than reported to WP:AIV for blocking. While sometimes this might be appropriate (for example if there is a long period of constructive, vandalism-free editing between the last level 4 warning and their new vandalism), too often the better thing to do would have been to go to WP:AIV. See User_talk:125.236.44.53 for a recent example.

Proposed Solution: Amend {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} such that it also adds some invisible text at the end of the template message that suggests to the next person coming along to warn the user that going to WP:AIV might be a better course of action. It could look something maybe like this:

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits{{#if:|, such as 
 the one you made to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. <br/> Any further [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] '''will''' result in your being 
 [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> 
 <!-- 
 
 NOTE: This user has already received a  FINAL WARNING for final vandalism. If you are about to leave another vandalism warning,
 
 PLEASE CONSIDER REPORTING THIS USER TO ADMINISTRATION INTERVENTION AGAINST VANDALISM INSTEAD. To do this, go to: 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AIV
 
 and follow the instructions there.
  -->
 (((Signature and time stamp))

The above needs work to look prettier, but hopefully you-all see what I'm getting at. Thoughts? Yilloslime (t) 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a nice idea, but I think the consensus in the past has been to avoid gratuitously letting vandals know about WP:AIV. They may not see the comment in the rendered page, but if they hit the "last change" link in the message waiting announcement, they'll see it. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad idea for 2 reasons:

1. As mentioned above its a bad idea to let the vandals know about WP:AIV. In general, if they've been told to stop, they should. If they don't, then they should not be upset for being blocked.
2. As a bigger issue, there are already too many reports at WP:AIV that administrators have to decline for being inappropriate, for example where a user's last level 4 warning is a month old, and they have not edited in between. This would only increase the number of inappropriate AIV reports without substantially decreasing the amount of vandalism done to the encyclopedia.

Just my $0.02... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

New (and not-so-new) uw templates

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, but before I took my break I had been running an API query looking for new uw-* templates, and posting any interesting results. Should I continue, and if so should I post here or at WT:UW?

Anyway, new templates this time around are:

• {{Uw-3rr-alt}} - a "less bitey" version of {{uw-3rr}}, IMO a good addition.
• {{Uw-9/11}} & {{Uw-9/112}} - two levels of a "arbcom sanctions" warning template, like {{uw-balkans}}/{{uw-balkans2}}. See below.
• {{Uw-adblock}}
• {{Uw-b4im}} - Redirect to existing {{uw-delete4im}}
• {{uw-balkans}} & {{Uw-balkans2}} - uw-balkans was rewritten during the course of a TFD: the original version was a warning for not having done anything yet, and the accepted rewrite was for use after the person had done something to deserve it. All good. So then it seems someone came back and moved the accepted version to {{Uw-balkans2}} and recreated the "Hi, I'm warning you even thought you haven't done anything yet" version at {{uw-balkans}}. WTF?
• {{Uw-birthday}}
• {{Uw-blp0}} - Redirect to a non-uw template, and since when have we had a level-0?
• {{Uw-confuser}} - A "welcome/warning" template, not in the uw style.
• {{Uw-d4im}} - Redirect to existing {{Uw-delete4im}}
• {{uw-ifu1/2/3/3im/4/4im}} - Warnings specifically for misusing Wikipedia:Images for Upload. Since when do we have 3im level templates?
• {{uw-libel1/2/3/4/4im}} - Redirects to the Uw-defamatory series.
• {{Uw-lyrics}} - An odd one, it's a "level 1" style copyright violation message. Most of our other single-level copyright violation messages are a sort of non-bitey level 3/4.
• {{Uw-nlt}} - Redirect to {{Uw-legal}}
• {{Uw-npblock}}
• {{Uw-patrolled}}
• {{Uw-remove1}} - No level 2/3/4, seems to duplicate the purpose of {{Uw-delete1}}.
• {{Uw-reported uaa}} - Dup of {{Uw-username}}, already at TFD. Deleted.
• {{Uw-samename}} - WP:CHU-specific template, not in uw style.
• {{uw-tdel1/2/3/4}} - "Don't remove cleanup templates without a reason", we already have a single-level {{uw-drmmt}}. IMO needs some cleanup if we want to keep them.
• {{Uw-thumb}}
• {{Uw-vand5}} - Yet another "I reported you!" template. These have been deleted in the past, see Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 8#"User reported" templates for some past discussion.
• {{Uw-vblock3}}
• {{Uw-welcometest}} - A nice welcome template, but not uw style. Renamed. Someday the redirect could be G6ed, I suppose.

I would like to TFD {{Uw-9/11}} and {{uw-balkans}} per previous discussion, TFD {{Uw-confuser}} as a special-case dup of {{Uw-username}}, TFD {{Uw-ifu3im}} for not making sense, TFD {{Uw-remove1}} for being a dup of {{Uw-delete1}}, CSD G4 {{Uw-vand5}} as a recreation of {{fwarn}}, RFD {{Uw-blp0}} as being a generally useless redirect, and move {{Uw-welcometest}} to a non-uw name. Also, I don't know whether we should redirect {{uw-drmmt}} to {{uw-tdel1}} or get rid of the uw-tdel series. But I would like consensus here before taking any of these actions, so please reply to let me know what you think. Anomie⚔ 02:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Great to have you back here Anomie! I've boldly redirected remove1 for the time being. Most of your other suggestions look good to me. I'm on the fence about the uw-tdel series, but my inclination is that it's not a bad idea to have such a series.--Kubigula (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back, I appreciate it! Maybe I'll follow your lead and create {{uw-remove2/3/4/4im}} as similar redirects. Anomie⚔ 03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done many of these. Do we support the rest? Specifically:

• TFD {{Uw-9/11}} and {{uw-balkans}} per Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 8#{{uw-balkans}} and Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 8#Recently created uw templates
• TFD {{Uw-confuser}} as a special-case dup of {{Uw-username}}
• TFD {{Uw-ifu3im}}
• RFD {{Uw-blp0}} as being a generally useless redirect

Anomie⚔ 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-sanctions}}

I've attempted to revise {{uw-sanctions}}, both to add the 9/11 sanctions and to make it a better fit with the UW style. Ideally, this will serve as a meta-template (if not a replacement) for {{uw-balkans2}} and {{uw-9/112}}; {{uw-balkans}} and {{uw-9/11}}, IMO, should be deleted as mentioned above. Thoughts? Anomie⚔ 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

New 3RR logo

I saw someone create a new 3RR logo at , do we want to integrate it into our existing warning scheme and blocking templates? MBisanz ^talk 08:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The icons we currently use indicate the severity of the warning: " Hi, here's some information for you", " Pay attention, or you may be blocked", and " If you don't stop immediately, you will be blocked". Adding this icon would just be decoration, IMO. Anomie⚔ 14:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see the new icon doing much other than making people wonder what it means. _{1 != 2} 14:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it mean "made from polyvinyl chloride"?--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

True, our aim is to use standardized warnings, just figured I'd drop a resource here since it looked unused anywhere when I found it. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it means you can recycle the warning. _{1 != 2} 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wording for {{Uw-italicize}}

The current text for this warning begins:

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content about books, films, albums, magazines, or TV series, you must italicize them by adding two single apostrophes ('' '').

The problem is that "them" does not have a correct stated antecedent—by the structure of the sentence, it would be "content about books...", but that's not what we want them to italicize, nor do we even want them to italicize "books..." but rather the titles of the books.

Suggested rewording:

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add the title of a book, film, album, magazine, or TV series to an article, it should be italicized by adding two single apostrophes on either side ('' '').

I figure that if we're providing a standardized pedantic comment, it should not itself be ripe for pedantic commentary... .--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, go ahead and make the change. Anomie⚔ 18:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to temper WP:BOLD with WP:DONTSCREWUPTEMPLATESWITHOUTCHECKING, so I thought I'd noise it around at least a little bit first. It does say it was "carefully designed," after all. I'll consider your exhortation to be "consensus". :-)--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, WP:DONTSCREWUPTEMPLATESWITHOUTCHECKING is always a good one to follow. ;) As for the "carefully designed", there is always room for improvement. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 01:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New/updated uw templates for May 18 to May 25

I'll list here any new uw-* templates, as well as any notable changes to existing templates in the past week.

• {{uw-layout}} - A template warning editors for not using the "mandatory" warning layout on WP:UW, discussed here.
• {{uw-maintenance3/4}} - Created as redirects to {{uw-tdel3/4}}, to match existing redirects at {{uw-maintenance1/2}}
• {{uw-remove2/3/4/4im}} - Created as redirects to {{uw-delete2/3/4/4im}} to finish the series after the redundant template {{uw-redirect1}} was redirected to {{uw-delete1}}.
• A whole lot of template talk pages were redirected here.
• Changed redirects: {{uw-drmmt}}, {{uw-attack}}, {{uw-only}}
• Revised templates: {{uw-tdel1/2/3/4}}, {{uw-sblock}}, {{uw-spam4}}, {{uw-sanctions}}

Anomie⚔ 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

TFDed {{uw-layout}}, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 26#Template:uw-layout. Anomie⚔ 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

TFDed {{Uw-ifu3im}}, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 26#Template:uw-ifu3im. Anomie⚔ 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Consensus

These are actions I would like to take, but first I would like consensus here to make sure I'm not off-base. Silent agreement doesn't encourage me, so please speak up ;) Anomie⚔ 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• (old) TFD {{Uw-9/11}} and {{uw-balkans}} per Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 8#{{uw-balkans}} and Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 8#Recently created uw templates.
• (old) TFD {{Uw-confuser}} as a special-case dup of {{Uw-username}}. Somewhat discussed at Wikipedia talk:UAA#Template for confusing names created.

uw-unsourced2

Would like to get rid of the invitation to contact "me" for assistance, especially given this is a level2 template. Bwrs (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability notice?

Would one for people who have created articles with no apparent claim to notability be a good idea? I don't see anything here that fits this role. Richard001 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Notability Peter Deer (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the inquiry was for a user warning, not an article marker. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes you're right. On that note, however, I think just a "hey stop making pages about your dumb garage band" should suffice. Peter Deer (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-create1/2/3/4/4im}} seems to fit. Anomie⚔ 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At least in the lower stages. Peter Deer (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Who should use these?

Sorry I'm sure info is around somewhere but I can't find it...

Should only sysops etc. add these to user talk pages? I'd assume with the levels etc contributing to possible blocks it should be done 'officially' but that leaves me wondering if I revert vandalism and don't / can't leave warning then does a non official doing the revert (and not warning) mean that the user escapes attention? -Hunting dog (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of ones saying things like "You have been blocked for a period of ___ hours" the warning templates are there to be used responsibly. See this page for more information. Peter Deer (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can add the warnings; if a user transgresses beyond a 'final warning' you can report them to a sysop at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, depending on the incident in question. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Difference between uw-vandalism4im and uw-bv

Is there really any difference between {{uw-vandalism4im}} and {{uw-bv}}? Uw-bv seems rather redundant to vandalism4im. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 04:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The first one is meant for sheer vandalism accounts and the other would be for 'evil hand' accounts. The first one basically says 'Okay, you're here to pee in our pool and we're not going to take it any more' and the second says 'Hey, look, stop messing around or you're going to get sat on, okay?'. HalfShadow 05:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

are there warnings/notices for these? Should there be?

1. Changing the article's correct English grammar and spelling to incorrect ones.(NOT common wealth and American problem)
2. Using lack of information as an argument to illogically claim something does not exist/is not real/not specific/etc.(say, like editing an article stating the Panda is not a common animal since a book called common animals does not contain panda, or a story is not canon in a meta-series since it is not included in the official guidebook, etc.)

Should there be a notice for people who try to help but English is poor enough to not being able to identify correct English? The second one should be more educational in teaching the users some actual logic. MythSearcher^talk 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the first one, there's {{uw-mos}}, that has a link to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page. HalfShadow 18:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Rewording of template

I think it would be useful to discuss the re-wording of this template to a) soften the tone and b) refer people to the appropriate re-creation channel, Wikipedia:Undeletion. I recently used this template and felt compelled to add an extension to soften the blow and direct the person to the right place to take action ... see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qussain&oldid=94513469. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I've been using this template for months, but just recently got warned about violating WP:BITE for using it. In any case, I have a copy of the old template at User:Danny Lilithborne/recreated Danny Lilithborne 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Threatening people (esp. new users) with a ban is unlikely to endear them to WP. jdb ❋ (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed - but an escalation template would be in order. Fact is, if you keep recreating deleted pages the administrators will block you. abrupt or not, the template is correct.--Crossmr 14:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not suitable for speedy deletions?

I noticed a user re-posting a nonsense article that got speedily deleted, so I put this template on the user's talk page. Its reference to "deletion review", however, suggests that this template should only be used for reposted articles that were deleted as a result of an AfD decision. -Amatulic 16:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review indicates that WP:DR considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. Therefore, use of this template for speedy deletions seems appropriate. Accurizer (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Self references

Is there a message template for users that deliberately self-publish information on their homepage in order to use this as a "reference" in Wikipedia articles? (e.g. here) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this happen often enough that it's worth templating? :-\ — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporary user page categorization embedded in spam block templates

While I think I understand the philosophy behind the temporary user page category and why we use it with other vandal blocks, I don't think we want to do this with spammers.

We use the information on a spammer's talk page to track a spammer across multiple IPs and sock accounts. This is really vital for keeping track of spam and prioritize which spammers to concentrate on. The hard-core spammers -- those that go through multiple warnings and then get blocked -- will almost always come back with a new IP or user name and with more domains to spam.

Code such as {{{category|[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}} in our block templates places the associated talk pages into the temporary user page category, setting them up to be deleted a few months later.

As someone very involved with tracking and removing spam, I strongly recommend not using code like this in our spam-related templates. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive137#Talk pages for indef users and Wikipedia talk:USERPAGE#Proposal to not delete talk pages for all indef users. I can't make out any sort of actual consensus in all that, but it seems to be something that people want to discuss. Anomie⚔ 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer -- I'll follow up at Wikipedia talk:USERPAGE#Proposal to not delete talk pages for all indef users. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a new sub-section of that discussion at Wikipedia talk:USERPAGE#Please don't tag spammers' talk pages as temporary. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it from {{uw-spamublock}}. If there is some consensus to replace it, that's fine, but clearly it should not be there by default. --MCB (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Uw-canvass

Uw-canvass strikes me as really oddly written and potentially very confusing to newcomers — hell, it confused me for a moment. I am considering rewriting it totally for clarity and context. Thoughts? tgies (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Discussion on new wording should probably occur at Template Talk:Uw-canvass. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll find that that presently redirects here. Should it?

I'll submit a draft rewrite in a few hours; I have some "real life" matters to attend to. tgies (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Instead of having 461 talk pages that very few people will bother to watch, we have one talk page that everyone interested can easily watch.

I agree that the wording there could be improved; for a single-level warning on a behavioral issue, it's currently unnecessarily WP:BITEy. Anomie⚔ 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've drafted a rewrite. Thoughts? tgies (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, I hope you don't mind that I've made some minor technical adjustments. Content-wise, I'm not so sure about the list in the middle of the template; is there a way to do it in prose and remain clear? Maybe something like "Although friendly notices are allowed, they must reflect a neutral point of view and be limited and nonpartisan in distribution." for a first sentence? I can think of a good way to incorporate the rest this morning, though. Anomie⚔ 11:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit it as you see fit. I've taken your suggestion and rewritten a bit to eliminate the list (and changed the en dashes back to em dashes and eliminated the spaces around them per WP:STYLE#Em dashes). I tried to incorporate the "don'ts" from the list as well. How's that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgies (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I only had two minor changes: a bit more straightforward wording and removing the bold on the links (linking, IMO, highlights that enough). Otherwise it looks great. Anomie⚔ 17:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I can't believe I forgot to sign that. Thanks for cleaning up after me :D

Your changes to the template look good. If nobody else has anything to say about it within the next few hours, I'll go ahead and replace the existing one. tgies (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Have replaced uw-canvass with the rewrite. tgies (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change of wording on {{uw-hangon}}

"...we request that you provide a reasoning of why it should remain on the article's talk page..." should be changed to "...we request that, on the article's talk page, you provide a reasoning of why it should remain...". --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely - the existing version has a misplaced modifier. Go for it!--Kubigula (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, but only an admin can do the actual change. The template is protected. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah - most of the templates are only semi-protected. I went ahead and tweaked the language per your concern, though a slightly different structure seemed better to me. Does that work for you?--Kubigula (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. This one was full-protected, for some reason. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Using warning templates in bad faith

Hello,

I recently reported a user, Badagnani for edit-warring/3R violation for which he was eventually blocked. Before he was blocked, he placed two warnings on my talk page that were blatant retaliatory attempts to shift the focus of the issue away from himself onto other editors and contributors in an move to portray me and others as vandals who were blanking the article.

Could some one please create a multi-level warning template for placing warning tags in bad faith, such as in the example I provided?

EG

• L1 - (niceties here). You recently placed a warning tag (default- on Wikipedia user pages variable-as you did on user x's talk page). This user feels that the tag was placed in error and would ask that you discuss any editorial disputes and differences on the article talk pages before placing a warning tag on a user's talk page.
• L2 - Please refrain from placing improper warning tags (default- on Wikipedia user pages variable-as you did on user x's talk page). Your warnings appear to constitute abuse and have been removed. We ask that you please discuss editorial disputes and differences on the article talk pages, thank you.
• L3 - Please stop disrupting user talk pages with inappropriate warning tags (default- on Wikipedia user pages variable-as you did on user x's talk page). If your abuse continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
• L4 - Please stop your deliberate mis-use of warning tags (default- on Wikipedia user pages variable-as you did on user x's talk page). If your abuse continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
• L4m - Stop immediately, your deliberate mis-use of warning tags (default- on Wikipedia user pages variable-as you did on user x's talk page) constitutes abuse. This is your first and only warning.

Thanks for your time, --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an existing single level template for this situation - {{Uw-tempabuse}} (shortcut: uw-ta). If it's clear template abuse and it continues after this warning, I think you can safely switch to the regular vandalism series. If it's not clear template abuse, a personalized message is the way to go.--Kubigula (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on recording vandalism after a final warning but before a block on the user talk page. (Template:Uw-afterfinal)

Hello. I had an idea, not sure whether it's a good one or not, but I've used a message like this a couple times in recent days, and it occured to me there might be a good cause to have a template like this. I went ahead and created the template, based on the syntax for the {{uw-vandX}} style templates, here Template:Uw-afterfinal. I see this template as being useful to record the pages vandalized after a level4 warning but before an admin completes the blocking of a user. That way, there's a record of additional vandalism, and misbehavior after the block expires can be dealt with with a full knowledge of the user's prior vandalism. Of course, it could also be argued that any template after a final warning reduces the credibility of the final warning. Thus, I figured it would be good to bring up here and see what the community thinks of the idea. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 09:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it's useless. Once they've gotten the level-4 warning and been reported to AIV, either they get blocked or they don't. Adding more warnings is just pointless. At least this version of the same old thing doesn't say "ha ha, I reported you"... Besides, if anyone wants full knowledge of someone's edits, User Contributions is the only way to go; people are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages, and that's not going to change. Anomie⚔ 13:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much have to agree with Anomie here. While we occasionally see talk pages with multiple level-four warnings in a row, it is generally because the editor or IP took several days off between vandalism sprees. In cases like that, the standard 4 or 4im template seems, IMHO, to work just as well. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

uw-spam1 wording presumes it's in Article namespace

When using {{subst:uw-spam1}} with an optional "|article" syntax, the wording appears to presume it is not a talk page. Here's an example:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Talk:Garry Kasparov do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the [[talk:Talk:Garry Kasparov|article's talk page]] before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Art Smart (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The above warning has a redlinked "article's talk page" because it refers to "Talk:Talk:Garry_Kasparov" instead of just "Talk:Garry_Kasparov". Admittedly, just a minor annoyance. --Art Smart (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tmbox

With the invention of {{tmbox}} would we want to begin converting our talk namespace templates to the standard format? MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A good start would be to make a list of templates that need conversion. OTOH, if the {{ambox}} conversion is any indicator there will be plenty of volunteers going through and changing every template they can find once they decide to officially roll it out. Anomie⚔ 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, once we have consensus for what look the different types of talk page message boxes should have then we can deploy the {{tmbox}}. Anomie is right, based on the ambox and imbox experience it is likely that lots of people will do the conversions and help out.

But the current problem is that not enough people have voiced their opinion over at Template talk:Tmbox, so we currently can not declare a consensus. So what we really need is that more people come there and have a look and a say about the new suggested style standard for talk page message boxes. Most boxes will look like before, but for some rare cases like warning templates we suggest a coloured border, like this:

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that, as people seem highly resistant to changing the warning templates they use. As part of WikiProject user warnings, all of the warnings here at WP:UTM were overhauled and harmonized years ago, but quite a few people still insist on user their olde tyme warning templates like {{test}}, {{blank2}}, {{vand3}}, and the such. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I agree that my efforts at TfD to kill the test templates have failed miserably, but converting them all to the same base code should not be an issue. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Converting them all to the same base code"? Neither the uw-* warnings nor the older ones have a use for {{tmbox}}, as neither are "message boxes". The uw-* block templates maybe, as they at least vaguely resemble message boxes. Anomie⚔ 10:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Random TFD of Template:Uw-birthday

Someone decided to TFD {{uw-birthday}} without bothering to notify us. Discuss at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Uw-birthday. Anomie⚔ 12:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I have trouble telling the UTM templates from the Test templates from the random templates, so I just let the script notify the template creator when nomming. MBisanz ^talk 13:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, it's why I watchlist all of them. FWIW, I consider anything with a "uw-" prefix should be a UTM template, and any other template is something else. Anomie⚔ 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger

I propose merging {{Uw-voablock}} and {{Uw-npblock}} as being pretty much duplicates, probably npb could be subsumed by voa. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of {{uw-repost}}

I've just rewritten {{uw-repost}} to fit into the uw style instead of being a redirect to {{repost}}. I'm also considering redirecting {{uw-Recreated}} to this new template, as {{uw-speedy3/4}} seems to adequately cover persistent recreators. Any thoughts? Anomie⚔ 21:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Parameter bug?

When I used the extended form of {{uw-block3}}: {{subst:uw-block3|reason=creating a public account|sig=Please do not post your password bla bla bla}} : the text that I specified with the "sig" parameter did not appear in the resulting text. Apparently there is a problem with either the template or the documentation. Thanks for looking into this. FreplySpang 01:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

sig in that template is apparently designed to output your signature if you specify any non-empty value, not to output whatever text you put there. Anomie⚔ 03:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocking messages

I made a page at User:MBisanz/Blocking to show the variation in our block messages, I'd really like to get them all in a standard form of X color, Y width, etc, even in the messages and images are different, any feelings or past discussions I should know about? MBisanz ^talk 07:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any specific past discussions off hand, but do check the archives of this page and of WT:UW. I see the uw-* templates in your list are already well standardized: all use the same box and color and only three icons are used: temp blocks all use , username blocks ("please keep editing, just pick a new name") use , and indefinite blocks use ; perhaps the icon size on the username blocks could be tweaked, but perhaps it's not needed. I haven't read through them all for wording issues. Personally, as I'm not an admin and have no particular desire to be one, I don't know which block messages are useful and which are superfluous.

As for the non-uw templates in your list, just keep in mind that some people really despise the uw setup for some reason, and many of those people probably don't watch this page. Also, once {{tmbox}} is launched that may be a route for standardizing the box colors and widths. Anomie⚔ 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall any discussion of this specific issue, though I do know that some attempts to standarize older non-conforming templates has met with resistance. I suspect MBisanz has run into that too. Personally, I would support efforts to introduce some uniformity - no need for so much variation in image sizing, for example.--Kubigula (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've noticed that, when Tmbox finally closes, I'm gonna make 3 lists, UTM, other, and Test, and work them in that order. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've discovered using Tmbox we can make the background white or transparent, obviously for the legacy templates, I suspect a non-coffeeroll background is preferred, do we want white or transparent? Also for the UW series, do we want coffeeroll or some other color for the non-blocking templates? MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Won't we only need them for messages that use a box? I don't see why we would start using boxes for the ones that are just text and an icon. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can set it in such a way that the box outline won't appear, the benefit would be that I do see some people misplace messages in the form {{Warn}}{{Test}}, which merges the text in an ugly fashion. MBisanz ^talk 06:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose using a box, invisible or otherwise, on any non-blocking uw template. Remember that the non-blocking templates are going to be used on user talk pages of new editors, and seeing "[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. ..." in their edit box is more straightforward than "{{tmbox | type = blah | image = [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] | style = background-color:transparent;border:none | text = Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. ...}}". As for "{{Warn}}{{Test}}", IMO the appropriate solution is to tell the person doing it "That merges the text in an ugly fashion. Don't do that!" Anomie⚔ 11:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes at WP:USER concerning IP talk pages

I'm trying not to get too worked up over this (part of my new mantra of not letting Wikipedia shenanigans drive me bat-sh*t crazy), but there has been a pretty significant change over at Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. In the past, IP talk pages have not been considered "user" pages under the guidelines. After some discussion at the pump and elsewhere, however, it is now in the guidelines that IP editors can do pretty much whatever they want with the talk page they are currently editing from, even if it is a shared or dynamic IP address. See additions here and here. I don't agree with it, and I'm not even sure there's consensus for it, but everyone involved in page patrolling should be aware. Thanks. — Satori Son 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Copied from User talk:Anomie to get wider input:

I've moved all the Test series template from Category:User_warning_templates to a subcategory Category:TestTemplates, I'm wondering if I should do the same for the UTM/UW series and if so, what I should call the subcat? MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We could take over Category:Standardised user warning templates. Anomie⚔ 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as all the pages in that category are redirects that belong in Category:Redirects from warning template (which also needs an overhaul), I like that idea. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I changed the cats in the parent templates, and discovered a bunch of templates with the name for, Template:UW-xyz, that aren't in the "official" UTM system, should I list them here for evaluation? MBisanz ^talk 06:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Anomie⚔ 11:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• {{Uw-adminabuse}}
• {{Uw-thankyou}}
• {{Uw-afterfinal}}
• {{Uw-birthday}}
• {{Uw-imagepermission}}
• {{Uw-lyrics}}
• {{Uw-sand}}
• {{Uw-falseinfo1}}
• {{Uw-fuir}}
• {{Uw-hoax}}
• {{Uw-lsnw}}
• {{Uw-notenglish}}
• {{Uw-persondata}}
• {{Uw-rfcn}}

These templates do not appear to have been created with the same care as the rest of the UW series, don't include it base templates, and in some cases are probably overspecific. Can we correct the ones that are worth saving and TfD the rest? MBisanz ^talk 07:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are my opinions:

• Keep {{Uw-imagepermission}} {{Uw-fuir}} {{Uw-rfcn}}
• Neutral {{Uw-adminabuse}} {{Uw-lyrics}} {{Uw-sand}} (maybe merge with {{uw-sandbox}}) {{Uw-notenglish}}
• Remove {{Uw-thankyou}} (not a warning) {{Uw-afterfinal}} (already at TFD) {{Uw-falseinfo1}} (redundant to {{uw-unsourced1}}) {{Uw-hoax}} (probably redundant to {{uw-error1/2/3}}) {{Uw-lsnw}} (seldom used one-page template) {{Uw-persondata}} (redundant to {{uw-delete1/2/3/4/4im}})

Also, I would like to add these to the list:

• {{uw-heb}} - Is a redirect to a non-UW template for a deleted proposed guideline.
• {{uw-c}} - If the redirect is useful, it needs adjustment to be in UW style. Also, with SUL it may need updating anyway.
• {{uw-3rr}} and {{uw-3rr-alt}} - Merge/redirect to {{uw-3rr3}} and {{uw-3rr1}}.
• {{uw-9/11}} and {{uw-balkans}} - The basic message of these templates is "Hi! You haven't done anything wrong, but I disagree with you so I'm going to harass you with this 'warning'.". If that's really the sort of thing we want to do, why not just have a bot that impartially warns every single person who edits the related articles? FWIW, when uw-balkans was originally created it was TFDed after discussion here, and was rewritten to what is currently at {{uw-balkans2}}. Then someone decided to recreate the original TFDed version.
• {{uw-coi1}} - Where are {{uw-coi2/3/etc}}?
• {{uw-confuser}} - Do we really need a special-purpose dup of {{uw-username}}?
• {{uw-aiv2}} - What happened to {{uw-aiv1/3/etc}}?
• {{uw-redirect}} - Redundant to {{uw-redirect1/2/3/4/4im}}.
• {{uw-welcometest}} - Is a redirect to a non-UW template.

Anomie⚔ 02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-ublock-famous

Another one: Template:Uw-ublock-famous 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. Anomie⚔ 11:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• The result of the debate was no consensus. (The debate was closed by Luna Santin at 01:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC).) I have removed the TfD notice from the template. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 18:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-afterfinal

Template:Uw-afterfinal 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. Anomie⚔ 19:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• The result of the debate was delete. The debate was closed by Woohookitty at 07:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC). ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No more substitution

Template substitution is messy and frustrating. Please stop encouraging this practice by telling people to subst: them. --Dragon695 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And your reason is? I don't see anything at WP:SUBST that says it shouldn't be done. ^Khukri 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And, in fact, WP:SUBST#User talk namespace says these templates should be substituted. Anomie⚔ 22:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the last thing we need is to have warnings that were carefully chosen for their wording change, thus applying people's signatures to text they did not intend. Powers ^T 13:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, some of the block templates (such as {{anonblock}}, {{schoolblock}}, etc.) are not supposed to be subst'ed, however they are fully protected so that only administrators may edit them. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"In the case of registered vandals"

There's a bit on the page about archiving warnings that says "in the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them."

Is there actually a vandal registry, and even if there is, is this sentence really intended to reference such a thing?

Given that this page is about a plethora of warnings, not just vandalism, I'm thinking the actual wording should be "in the case of registered users, archiving is up to them."--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you must be right. There's no such thing as a "registered vandal".--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the wording.--Kubigula (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Undeleting blocknumbers template?

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 19#Template:Blocknumbers was used to replace pages with dozens of final warnings (rarely acted on, making them useless) and vastly different looking old block boxes. I think cleaning these pages and putting the template there is better than the hodgepodge whack-a-mole user page warnings, and that it should be undeleted. Reason given was that the block log is used by admins, not the template; and that the template shamed the user - but surely dozens of warning/block boxes are worse? Any reasons to keep all the warnings instead of simple numbers? -- Jeandré, 2008-07-13t14:22z

Try WP:DRV. Anomie⚔ 14:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Templates for vandals impersonating other users

I have a situation with a user Stannj, who vandalized the image Berkley.jpg. When I questioned him about it, he said it was created on his "old account." The only other username, which was very similar, that I saw on the history page was Stanthejeep who said he was not Stannj's old account and he created the original image and had nothing to do with the vandalism. Later, after it had been deleted, he reverted the vandalism. Because of the fact that the usernames are similar, and that Stannj vandalized his work, I believe Stannj is attempting to impersonate him and throw credit for his vandalism onto him. I'm wondering if there is a template for people who are impersonating another user so I can put it on Stannj's talk page? Also, is there a way for me to edit his user page, where he tries to claim that he had an old account? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In following the trail of edits, I'm a bit confused. Unless there has been some oversighted edits, User:Stannj has made exactly 6 edits to Wikipedia: 4 visible in his contribution history and 2 deleted edits; all 6 of these edits were in November 2007. I do not see any edit where he responded to you at all. In fact, the contribution history of User talk:Stannj shows you as the sole editor. I see that today you tailored the templates you left on his page in December 2007. There's nothing wrong with that but it seems quite fruitless to expend any time updating warnings directed at a user who made six edits 8 months ago and has never been heard from again. While there is {{Suspected impostor}}, when you are presented with an essentially one-off situation, tailor your warnings exactly as you have already done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Reason parameter for uw-username

I have gone ahead and re-added the big red warning that shows up when someone uses the {{uw-username}} template without specifying a reason why they think a username violates policy. Too many people are just slapping the template on people's talk pages without specifying what is wrong - in some cases this is not immediately obvious (e.g. User talk:Kennyhotz). If a username violation is so blatant that no explanation is needed, then that username should be reported to WP:UAA. If you want to discuss a username violation with a user, I think it is common courtesy to tell them exactly what the concern is. Is he back? (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the red warning, but how is {{uw-username/doc}} better than {{Singlenotice|param1=reason}}? Anomie⚔ 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that you could add parameters to the Singlenotice template like that. Adding {{Singlenotice|param1=reason}} seems to work quite well, except that it gives the impression that the reason parameter is optional, and also refers to "the article name" in the second to last bullet point. Is there some way to configure the Singlenotice template not to do this? Is he back? (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Anomie⚔ 01:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New templates for July

• {{uw-authorshipclaims}} is effectively a dup of {{Authorship claims}}, created 2.5 days after the latter was listed at TFD. If that TFD results in delete, either WP:CSD#G4 or WP:CSD#G6 should apply; if not, do we want to try to TFD it or rewrite it? And if we rewrite it, is the purpose to be somewhat redundant to WP:PUI or to try to scare people with legal crap?
• {{uw-botblock}}
• {{uw-icon2}} to complete the series, even though it's identical to {{uw-icon1}}
• {{uw-joke4im}}
• {{uw-pov1/2/3/4}} as redirects to {{uw-npov1/2/3/4}}
• {{uw-serious}}/{{uw-serious1}} Obviously, it's a joke warning.

Anomie⚔ 01:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX

We have a new magic word that lets us keep pages out of google searches. It is applied by adding {{NOINDEX}} to a page. I suggest we add it to the indef block templates, since a lot of blocked users relate to people's names and jobs and we don't need to go telling the world they are banned from WP. MBisanz ^talk 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Especially is it is just a troll creating an account in someone else's name.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:uw-authorshipclaims

{{Authorship claims}} was kept, so we need to decide what to do with the similarly bitey and redundant {{uw-authorshipclaims}}. I've made a shot at a rewrite in my sandbox, please let me know what you think. Anomie⚔ 11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Anomie⚔ 01:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE

What happened to not biting newcomers? This template is way too bitey. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ahem ;) which one? ^Khukri 20:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The talk button on the individual templates unusually redirects to this general talk page - this is confusing for those who don't notice. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was to stop editors leaving messages on individual templates, when not everyone who is involved with UTM or UW have all of the templates watchlisted. ^Khukri 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As of sometime this morning there were 474 uw-* templates/redirects. That would be a lot of pages to add to a watchlist. Anomie⚔ 16:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bad people don't bother to read any of the notices at the top of the page, like the one that specifically states "To centralize discussion, all uw-* template talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of these templates, please be sure to identify which one.". Anomie⚔ 16:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dang! Sorry, I didn't notice I had been redirected. Template:Uw-spamublock is the one I meant. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

← No problem at all. I can't say I see how {{uw-spamublock}} is particularly bitey, though; it just informs the person that they have been blocked for a particular reason, and tells them they are welcome to apply for a rename. IMO, something like {{authorship claims}} is far more bitey. Anomie⚔ 01:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of {{uw-minor}} being criticised on AN/I

I posted a {{uw-minor}} on an editor who had made thousands of incorrectly flagged edits and am being criticised on AN/I for it - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistant_misuse_of_the_minor_edit_flag. What's the point of it if it can't be used in such a situation ? Thoughts appreciated. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

erm, sorry but I don't see you being criticised on ANI for use of this template. The template is a single issue template to inform users of the minor edits check box, it's use and where to read for further information. Looking through ANI it seems it a difference of opinion of what constitutes a minor edit itself and not this template. I think this is being discussed enough in ANI and doesn't really need WP:UTM involvement to start a similar discussion or fork. Sorry. ^Khukri 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording Change to vandalism1

I tried to change the wording of uv-vandalism1 around to make it less bitey. Let me know what you think of this one and whether it would be acceptable to go ahead and change it.

{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}} Hello, '''{{BASEPAGENAME}}''' and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, such as the one you made to [[:{{{1}}}]],}} did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --><noinclude> {{Templatesnotice|series = uw-vandalism|max = 4im|s1 = uw-v1|s2 = uw-vand1|s3 = uw-vandal1}} [[bg:Шаблон:П-вандал1]]</noinclude>

which comes out to:

Hello, Template index/User talk namespace and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been 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 constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I can't say I like the "{{BASEPAGENAME}}" part in there. The rest sounds ok to me. Anomie⚔ 01:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I liked the BasePageName part. It seemed to be a bit more personal and friendly. If the point of these templates is to prevent future vandalism, doesn't that bit of friendliness help? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the BASEPAGENAME either. None of the other templates use it and it seems a bit excessive. On a side note, your edit broke signatures and removed the protection marker. I fixed those items. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine for logged in users, but greeting someone by their IP seems distinctly impersonal and unfriendly to me.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  07:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that. Welcoming by IP number is just bad. For that reason, I've removed the BASEPAGENAME unless consensus here deems otherwise. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a fan either of basepage name, and would rather it's use is discussed here prior to addition, as we have to look at the other 100 odd lvl 1 / good faith templates. ^Khukri 13:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-serious1

Template:Uw-serious1 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. Anomie⚔ 19:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another preemptive warning

Someone has gone and created {{uw-probation}}, which is yet another preemptive warning to discourage people from editing certain classes of articles. At least this one tries to AGF... Anomie⚔ 13:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Uw-npblock}} change to indef or time limited?

On a couple of occasions, I've blocked editors for creating nonsense pages, but only for a set time period, not indefinitely (maybe I'm being too nice). I would have like to have used the Uw-npblock template, but it's indef only. Does anybody have any opinions on changing it so that it's like Uw-sblock where it can be either time limited or indef depending upon which options it is given? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. ^Khukri 07:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. I cleaned up (I hope) the documentation on which blocks can either be timed or indef'ed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding IW

Where is the documentation located? I Need to add interwiki-links to no:Mal:Uw-vandalism1, no:Mal:Uw-vandalism2, no:Mal:Uw-vandalism3, no:Mal:Uw-vandalism4 and no:Mal:Uw-vandalism4im, but can't locate the documentation page? Nsaa (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

stupid questin by me. I've added the iw-links directly to the templates. But anyway, it would be nice to know where the documentation is located if anyone can direct me towards it? Nsaa (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the uw-* templates use one of two shared documentation pages, {{Singlenotice}} for single-level warnings and {{Templatesnotice}} for series warnings; it would not work well to add (non-noincluded) IW links to either of those, as it would add the IW to a large swath of uw-* templates. What you did was the best thing to do for interwiki links on these templates. Anomie⚔ 14:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

uw-vandalism5?

Resolved

 – Deleted by Khoikhoi --Kralizec! (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone created {{uw-vandalism5}} this morning as a redirect to {{uw-block1}}. IMO, this is a bad idea because {{uw-block1}} should only be applied once an admin has actually blocked the user, and "{{uw-vandalism5}}" implies that it should be used by anyone after {{uw-vandalism4}}. Comments? Anomie⚔ 12:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I've listed it for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox for files

Your template mentions that you should use the sandbox, yet this template is about uploading files. The two have nothing in common. --75.150.49.61 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're talking about {{uw-upload1}}; if not, please specify which template you are talking about. You do have a point; I've edited {{uw-upload1}} to remove the mention of the sandbox and to clean up the wording somewhat. Anomie⚔ 18:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting worse

Every time I come here in search of a particular template, I find it more and more difficult to find an adequate one. Where are the 3-revert-rule and copyright-infringement sequences of warnings? Page too cluttered. Húsönd 04:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe {{uw-3block}} is for 3RR, but there's no specific copyright warning, you'll have to use the generic {{uw-block}} templates. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We have rather too many 3RR warnings at the moment: {{uw-3rr}} and {{uw-3rr-alt}} for single-level warnings, and the series {{uw-3rr1/2/3/4}}. We don't have a series of warnings for copyright infringement, just {{uw-copyright}} (although redirects do exist for {{uw-copyright1/2/3/4}}).

Are you volunteering to redesign the page to make it less "cluttered"? Anomie⚔ 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we could ever code the multi-level templates into a single template with a conditional function. So leaving {{uw-3rr|1}} would leave a level one warning, etc. MBisanz ^talk 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. If someone has the time to do this, it would be great. Otherwise I'll put it on my list of things to do...though it may not get done for a while due to my RL busy-ness. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The page used to be more functional and complete a couple of years ago. And we really could use a sequence of copyright-infringement warnings; just yesterday an anonymous user kept adding copyvio and I couldn't just drop inadequate vandal warnings on him. Several other single-level warnings could also become multi-level. Húsönd 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

When I look at the version from a couple of years ago, I see a page with wide tables that go off the edge of my screen but otherwise very similar to a combination of this and this. Anomie⚔ 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it goes off the edge because we're not in 2006 anymore and there's stuff in the table that needs to be fixed. Anyway I was glad to see the old page; once again I realize that its simplification didn't make life any simpler. Húsönd 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's easy with a #switch parserfunction. But when someone enters {{subst:uw-3rr|Main page}} instead of {{subst:uw-3rr|2|Main page}}, what should happen? Anomie⚔ 23:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe we could have it give a warning that the template isn't meant to be used like that? (like talk page templates do if they're used in article space) Alternatively, it could give the first-level warning. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am biased because I remember all too well how long it used to take to find the right warning template, but I rather like the new layout. At the top we have multi-level warnings, all organized into topical sections: nonconstructive, ideologies, factual inaccuracies, unacceptable practices, and behavior. Now that all the warnings are nicely organized, it only takes me a minute or two to find even the most esoteric warning template. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Uw-biog4im

Someone created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-biog4im it needs to be linked to. --75.150.49.61 (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Good observation.--Kubigula (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a busy day for new templates

Now someone has created {{uw-blpse3}} and {{uw-blpse4}}, but oddly not {{uw-blpse1}} or {{uw-blpse2}}. They also claim that those templates "may only be applied to user talk pages by administrators", and they did not do a very good job of following the standard format for uw-* templates. Both also threaten that the recipient may be blocked, "without further warning" in the supposed level 3 case despite the existence of the level 4 template.

I don't think these fit well in the uw-* system, and at the least should be moved to a non-uw name. But maybe I'm off base here, what does everyone else think? Anomie⚔ 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC) With all this bureaucracy springing up, I'm glad I don't normally edit BLP articles.

My own preference would have been to incorporate a reference to the special enforcement ruling into the existing BLP3 and BLP4 templates. As it is, we have so many templates for essentially the same thing that it's quite confusing. If these are really for admin use only, then I agree that they should be moved out of the uw system.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to do notify the creator about this discussion this morning, and found you already had. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove them to the editors user space or delete. ^Khukri 06:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins CAN add it. ;-) Bazj (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes - as far as I know, there is no way to stop anyone from using a template. The idea is that only admins SHOULD add it.--Kubigula (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

These templates came about as a result of the issues that surround the Sarah Palin article. In brief, the article was placed under Special Enforcement for severe and repeated BLP violations, and the concern was that warning and blocking the editors who repeatedly posted these violations would be ineffective due to the sheer volume of traffic on the page. The existing template, on which these are in part based, is at {{BLP Spec Warn}}, and is very specifically intended as a final warning - and, in addition, many admins who would enforce the special enforcement ruling are unaware of the template. So, I attempted to split it into two templates that follow the format of other user talk page warnings.

The level 4 warning is based on the existing template, and is indeed a final warning - thus, the level 4. Level 3 was intended as a milder template for newer users, or editors who may not be familiar with BLP. It assumes good faith, for example - which is why I used language from the Level 1 BLP template. But, on the other hand, the Special Enforcement ruling could very easily result in blocks or sanctions for very few policy violations, so it seemed prudent to include the warning of a possible block - as most level three templates do (though rarely bolded for level 3). If an editor receives a level 3 warning, and then posts something particularly egregious, they can be blocked to prevent further violations; the preference, though, is that they discuss the matter on the article's talk page, or refrain from posting the material again.

The templates both indicate that Admins are the only ones who can use them, and I think that needs to remain for the level 4 template. The Arbcom ruling grants the special authority to Administrators specifically, not the community in general, which is admittedly bizarre and needlessly complicated - but it's what we have; the ability to specifically threaten sanctions under the ruling is limited to admins, and non-admins who use the template wouldn't be able to actually implement such sanctions, even if they do not technically require admin tools to do so.

Tl;dr - These templates are intended to assist in the management of the project's highest traffic article, which also happens to be the first article placed under Special Enforcement; I think having the simpler templates will make it easier for admins to enforce BLP on the article, so that we can actually have it semi-protected instead of Full-protected as it currently is (for 2 weeks) (!). Y'all have much more experience with these templates than I do, so please let me know where we can make changes to meet these goals. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a thorough and convincing statement, and I'm sold on the need for the templates. That being said, I still suggest moving them out of the uw system - they aren't part of the routine warning system and having the uw prefix will likely confuse editors as to which template they are supposed to use. I also suggest removing the welcoming language from the level 3 template, as it essentially makes it unusable unless you are dealing with a very new editor.--Kubigula (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea - I'll move them later today. It might be worthwhile to fork the level 3 template into a milder one specifically for new users, as we could go into greater detail on what the hell Arbcom is and why their ruling is binding - I can see some brand new editors showing up to post the latest rumor about someone as their first edit, for example. I'll tinker today. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning layout

I don't recall ever seeing this template in use. How does it fit in with the use of tools such as Twinkle and Huggle? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Which template? Anomie⚔ 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the {{s/wnote}} template that is supposed to go under the level two "Warnings" heading, but above the level three months. In my experience, most of the AV scripts just ignore it altogether. However speaking as an admin who generally spends time every day processing AIV block requests, I find the template terribly helpful and wish more people used it. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding levels to {{uw-hoax}}?

How do people feel about making {{uw-hoax}} multi-level? The current template is rather polite, giving helpful guesses at what the user was trying to do and offering solutions. However, a lot of hoax stuff is along the lines of editing article to say that people have died, or repeated hoax material, or such. I'm planning on moving {{uw-hoax}} to {{uw-hoax2}} and then adding in other levels, culminating in a final warning. How does that sound? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between {{uw-hoax}} and {{uw-error1/2/3}}, for that matter? Anomie⚔ 18:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Those templates appear to be limited to the "randomly changing figures" category of vandalism. I'd be happy with a rewording of those templates to imply the deliberate addition of outright untruths to articles (as opposed to mere "errors") though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me too, I just wanted to point out the similarity. Anomie⚔ 00:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New template: uw-school

{{uw-school}} was created recently (by a rather new user who seems quite familiar with Wikipedia's workings). The template is oddly threatening and seems like it would really only be able to be applied to an IP user. I'm inclined to TFD it, unless someone has a criterion for speedy deletion that would apply. Any comments? Anomie⚔ 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

TFD'd by me. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Table layout?..

Why is the table all funny-looking, there's hardly any space in the columns for the portrayal of the '{{tags}}'.. Someone please revert it back to the original table layout, thank you. WinterSpw (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Subst anonblocks?

The "what to type" includes subst in the school and anonblocks, but the template pages themselves say not to use subst for these templates. Puzzled, dave souza, talk 09:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bold welcome link

I just noticed that Mukadderat has made the link to the welcome page bold in both the uw-vandalism1 and uw-test1 templates. Is this desirable? Has there been any discussion on this? It would seem to me that the bold link distracts from the rest of the text and might reduce its effectiveness. swaq 21:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

uw-chat*

The message that {{uw-chat1}} and others in that family generate includes a parameter for a specific article. However, when the article title is used, it turns the text into something like:

However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Example_Article are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic.

Shouldn't the article link really go to Talk:Example_Article instead? Esrever ^(klaT) 03:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Talk:Example Article" should be put there, not "Example Article". I can see where the confusion might have come from, as the help for those templates states "article". I've adjusted the help text to say "page" instead, does that seem sufficient? Anomie⚔ 03:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that makes more sense. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 17:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

uw-notvote

• {{uw-notvote}}

This template has a broader use than just in AFD discussions (RFC, etc.). I'd recommend removing the AFD language/policy link entirely, as it inhibits the use of the template in other circumstances. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

CAT

On User talk:Thegone the template {{Uw-lblock}} had added the page to Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, this seems like a bad idea. Rich Farmbrough, 02:54 10 February 2008 (GMT).

I agree. Sorry to see this hasn't gotten any attention. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's still a valid concern, no matter how long ago the comment was made. Adding the RfC tag. -- Ned Scott 23:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:uw-username/doc proposed for deletion

This documentation subpage has been unused since July, so I've listed it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 9#Template:Uw-username/doc. This is probably completely uncontroversial. Anomie⚔ 00:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-controversial2}}

Hi all - I recently had call to use a warning of a kind which didn't seem to be covered by the existing scheme, so I created {{uw-controversial2}}. If this seems badly worded, please amend it as you see fit (if it seems like a bad idea for a template,f eel free to nominated it for deletion). If, however, it seems useful, it may be worth considering creating a range of these similar to the other variable-level warning messages. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this actually represents Wikipedia's policies/guidelines; WP:BOLD for example encourages people to make edits. AFAIK, controversial edits are generally discouraged only in regard to BLPs (for which we have {{uw-biog1/2/3/4/4im}}), and even then it's mostly unsourced controversial edits that are the problem. Most other cases aren't something to warn someone about, they're something to inform the person about and invite them to further discussion. Anomie⚔ 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD may encourage people to make edits, but it also specifically warns not to make edits on controversial subjects without first seeking some form of talk page consensus. I've been involved in situations on numerous occasions in the past when edits to a controversial subject have stirred up quite fiery edit wars. And when one editor persists in making changes against consensus - or without seeking any form of consensus - or repeatedly reverts to his or her own version (but stays within 3RR), it seems logical to warn them that such edits may not be widely appreciated. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so much "not to" as "be careful when", actually. Anyway, the template doesn't currently say that; it implies that all controversial edits have to be discussed and that anyone who doesn't is trying to cause trouble. Repeated reversions just inside the limit violate the spirit of 3RR, which WP:3RR specifically addresses. We also have {{uw-npov1/2/3/4}} for POV-pushers, {{uw-advert1/2/3/4}} for spammers, {{uw-unsourced1/2/3}} for people who insist on inserting unsourced information, {{uw-error1/2/3}} for people inserting errors, {{uw-nor1/2/3/4}} for people pushing original research, and so on.

A template/series reworded to point out WP:Consensus for use on those people who refuse to discuss things might work (although {{uw-3rr1}} and {{uw-3rr-alt}} already serve that purpose), but trying to claim a blanket ban on "controversial edits" just won't fly. Anomie⚔ 00:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thought I'd see how others felt, but you're right - it does seem more like a "don't do this" than a "please discuss", which is what I was aiming for. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, any need of this template probably would be met by either the BLP or NPOV warnings. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion relating to user warnings

Please comment at WP:VPR#Non-english warning. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 14:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bug found in Template:uw-delete1

I noticed someone had partially blanked an article without an edit summary. I assumed good faith and notified the anonymous user with the code

{{subst:uw-delete1|Dark Angel (DC Comics)|subst=subst:}}

Everything looked OK, but the "page history" link came out completely befuddled. To correct it I changed the article name to "Dark_Angel_(DC_Comics)". That fixed the page history link, at the cost of throwing my signature line to the next line with a space in front of it, which got wikiformatted into that lovely little box. I didn't think to try %20 instead.

Anyhow, somebody might want to investigate & fix this. --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the history link was recently added to the template and was not tested enough. I believe the signature problem was created in the same edit by adding a new line before the <noinclude> tag. I have reverted this edit to fix the problem. swaq 17:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one responsible for adding the link to the history page and testing it at my personal sandbox. I am trying to copy the whole template to my sandbox and begin testing from there. Alexius08 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've restored it with the noinclude tag carried to the previous line. Alexius08 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. However it appears that the history link for {{subst:uw-delete1|Dark Angel (DC Comics)}} still does not work. It seems to be related to having a space in the article title. swaq 17:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it myself after looking through tons of help pages. swaq 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Slight changes to uw-ublock

I made two small changes to {{uw-ublock}}, the first based on an earlier change today by GDonato. The wording preceding the "reason" parameter did leave a grammatically awkward sentence stub which at first I misunderstood; I reinstated GDonato's edit but changed "the username" to "your username" since the template is directly addressed to the user. Secondly, I changed "may not meet our username policy" to "does not meet our username policy"; username indef-blocks are not placed for conditional or equivocal violations. --MCB (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The second part sounds good to me. I have no idea about the first, except to note that it changes the nature of the "reason" value admins should be providing (e.g. instead of {{subst:uw-ublock|names ending in "Bot" are reserved for bot accounts}} they must now do {{subst:uw-ublock|ends in "Bot", which is reserved for bot accounts}}). That's something for people who actually use the template to comment on. Anomie⚔ 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

If a user replaces a section is an article with random profanity, it doesn't make sense to say the edit "appeared to be unconstructive". At the same time, a uw-vandalism4im warning would be inappropriate. Thus I propose the change the uw-vandalism1 template to say "appeared to be unconstructive and might have constituted vandalism." That way, a vandal doesn't just get told to "go play in the sandbox", but actually has a policy that warns them against vandalistic edits. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My view on this is that there is no requirement that you start with a level one template. If the vandalism is mild, I like to start with level one to see if the person gets the message. However, if it's impossible to assume good faith based on the nature of the vandalism, I skip to level 2.--Kubigula (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I like how {{uw-v1}} doesn't actually mention the word "vandalism", it's less bitey and more WP:AGF that way. Anomie⚔ 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this some more. I still don't support using the vandalism label in the level one template, for the reasons noted by Anomie. However, I think we should just say the edit "was unconstructive", rather than "appeared to be unconstructive". If the edit was ambiguous, then the test1 template is a better choice. If the edit is clearly unconstructive, then vandal1 is a good template, and we should be clear and direct.--Kubigula (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think the level 1 warnings should remain just as friendly and non-threatening as they are - they should be used for people that you can comfortably assume good faith on. If an IP comes along and blanks a page, I can easily assume it was an accident and a friendly level 1 warning is fine. If an IP comes along and replaces the content of a page with "this guy's a moron" then, depending on the situation, a level 1 warning doesn't really get the message across - in which case use a level 2. Warnings really should be treated as just that - ways of informing users of our policies and, if they seem to be deliberately disobeying them, the consequences of it. There's a temptation to treat the four levels of warnings as a "four strikes" system, but there's no reason you have to start at level 1 if the text of the level 2 warning better describes what needs to be said. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-authorshipclaims

Template:Uw-authorshipclaims 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. Anomie⚔ 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Anomie⚔ 11:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Uw-IPblock3

Someone has created {{Uw-IPblock3}} as a redirect to a userspace template {{User:J.delanoy/IPblock3}}. IMO, either the template should be moved to template space or the redirect should be deleted; there is no need for a redirect from template space to user space. I have no opinion as to which should happen, as I will never have need to use it. What does everyone think? Anomie⚔ 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I only made it so that it would be easier for my modified Twinkle-revert script to work, but it is not necessary. I didn't think it was a problem, but if anyone does, feel free to delete it. If you do, can you let me know so that I can change my script, please? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Or could we move it to the template space as a new template? I have found it useful when a vandal has been blocked more than twice, but does not yet warrant a 1-month block. What do you guys think? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We should at least move that to something like {{IPblock3}} instead because the "Uw" makes it sound like we're warning someone for improperly blocking someone, or we're warning someone for abusing a block template (example: placing the {{schoolblock}} template on an IP talk page for an IP that is not blocked). :) GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just anyone happening across this discussion knows, per a discussion on WT:AIV, and due to my realization of the limited applicability of the template, I have deleted both the template and the redirect. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

GO-PCHS-NJROTC, does that mean you also want to move {{Uw-3block}}, {{Uw-3rrblock}}, {{Uw-ablock}}, {{Uw-adblock}}, {{Uw-block}}, {{Uw-block1}}, {{Uw-block2}}, {{Uw-block3}}, {{Uw-botblock}}, {{Uw-dblock}}, {{Uw-ewblock}}, {{Uw-hblock}}, {{Uw-huggleblock1}}, {{Uw-huggleblock2}}, {{Uw-huggleblock3}}, {{Uw-lblock}}, {{Uw-npblock}}, {{Uw-recentblockwarn}}, {{Uw-sblock}}, {{Uw-sblock1}}, {{Uw-soablock}}, {{Uw-spamblock}}, {{Uw-spamublock}}, {{Uw-ublock}}, {{Uw-ublock-famous}}, {{Uw-uhblock}}, {{Uw-usernameblock}}, {{Uw-vaublock}}, {{Uw-vblock}}, {{Uw-vblock3}}, and {{Uw-voablock}}? Anomie⚔ 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"uw" stands for "user warning". In this case, we are "warning" (i.e. notifying) them that they have been blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition relating to what to do if an edit wasn't just "an edit test"

I quite often see edits in recent changes that certainly appear to be edit tests, but unless the edit is blatant sillyness, such as adding stuff like "Elizibeth rules the world," there's always that .1% chance that a constructive edit gets reverted as a test edit or as vandalism. For this reason, I propose that we add something like If your edit was not just "playing around with Wikipedia," then feel free to reinsert your information citing a reliable source. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:uw-socksuspect

Someone moved {{Socksuspectnotice}} to {{uw-socksuspect}} today. I took the liberty of moving it back and creating something more in the uw-* style at {{uw-socksuspect}}. Feel free to review my version. Anomie⚔ 01:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

uw-aiv

This template warning seems vague : appears...may...or...sufficiently.... It is so vague, that I think Template:Uw-AIV should not be used; it does not indicate the recipient did anything wrong. Suggestion: it should be split into two notices, at the 'or'. --Psrq (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome templates for foreign-language contributors

I have just created the user talk template {{welcomeen-fr}}, which should be used to tell an apparently French-speaking new user that there is a Wikipedia in French. There are a whole bunch of similar templates that exist for other languages, yet they are not listed anywhere, even as a group. I thought here would be the right place to list them, and I would like to know everyone's opinion on how to incorporate them into this page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:uw-bv

Someone is edit warring at {{uw-bv}}, claiming that the statement "This template has been carefully designed based on guidelines by the user warnings project" is somehow false. In particular, this comment was moved here from Template talk:uw-bv (as that same user felt the need to ignore the redirect here for centralized discussion where people might actually see it):

My view is that, whether or not {{blatantvandal}} was actually written by this user, that template was adapted for use in the uw-* system as {{uw-bv}}; that almost no changes were required for that purpose is an indication that {{blatantvandal}} was well written in the first place. None the less, {{uw-bv}} was designed based on the guidelines of the UW project, which just so happened to almost match the design used by {{blatantvandal}} (the difference I notice is that the icon is slightly different and not floated in the uw version). Please, let's not take this to WP:LAME. Anomie⚔ 04:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm correct me if I'm wrong but didn't gracenotes create this template, he can edit away to blatantvandalism, but uw-bv and BV were different templates that just happen to look similar, and have now since merged. The main goal of having the UW system was to create a standard system without people penchant for bells and furry whistles on warnings, and for the standard look n' feel. All changes should be discussed prior to making them to reduce the risk of a calamatous balls up due to the nature of the high visibility of these templates. To me Anomie you did right revert then discuss, and as far as I can see the changes had no merit. Why there are some of the old template floating around, is that some people prefer to use the leery colours etc we cannot stop that, but if it's a uw template, you guys can control whats done to them. ^Khukri 08:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the page history, you are correct, Gracenotes did create {{uw-bv}}. Until now, neither User:Scott MacDonald nor User:Doc glasgow has ever edited that template; the whole ownership issue seems to be that it was based on a non-uw template that User:Doc glasgow did create. I hope User:Scott MacDonald will stop being disruptive and join in this conversation. Anomie⚔ 11:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_template_police_strike_again. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02: Gracenotes did not "create" Template:uw-bv in any meaningful sense. He even acknowledges in his initial creation that he was making a new version of Template:bv. We wouldn't view that as "creation" in any significant way for GFDL, copyright, or 3RR purposes, and we shouldn't view it as such here.

On another note, I want to issue this warning: the user templates project does not WP:OWN this template, despite what anyone may think, and I want to warn everyone that the very next time I see someone unjustifiably slinging around the word "vandal" or "disruption" to describe parties to this content dispute, I'm going to block them so fast their eyes spin. Nandesuka (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to lose your sysop bit that quickly, you can just request it be removed instead of abusing it to force wikidrama. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what does force wikidrama and raise tensions? Silly notices like this. Can we try to keep things a bit cooler? Seraphim♥Whipp 12:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Anomie⚔ 12:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really great to see that post, but it would so much better to see this whole thing diffuse with an exchange of apologies between the people in the dispute... ^{(What...I can dream... :( )} Seraphim♥Whipp 12:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The creation of {{uw-bv}}, indeed by Gracenotes (February 2007), has the following edit note: "create uw-version of the uber-cool {{bv}}". The template {{bv}} was at the time a redirect (essentially created by Doc glasgow) to {{Blatantvandalism}}, created by Doc glasgow. Gracenotes copied the text without any changes. Changes since then were very minor. So Scott seems to be right.

Being right in a dispute about content (in this case the content of template documentation) is no excuse for edit warring. Accusations of an ownership attitude against the opposite party are also no excuse for edit warring. (Actually, there are clearly ownership tendencies on both sides.)

(Btw, Scott, I was very impressed by this "new" user. I am glad you are back.) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Doc Glasgow created the substantial majority of the text in the current template in October 2005, and should be credited as such on the template page, owing to the non-history-preserving move that was made by Gracenotes. Having a template say that it was designed by some Wikiproject which had no hand in its creation is an incorrect claim of authorship, really. - Mark 12:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gracenote's creation was a word-by-word copy of Scott's creation. Compare latest version of bv versus first version of uw-bv. Only the image changes. If you compare the old template with the currect version of uw-bv, the only changes have been: a)restoring the image that Scott's template had b) replacing "stop, and consider" with "stop. Consider" c) removing "Thank you".

I'm going to go so far as to suggest that the guys that wrote the wikiproject guidelines actually based them on how Scott's template was written :D --Enric Naval (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good point Mark, I've fixed the wording at [2] to properly reflect the authorship of the various templates. MBisanz ^talk 12:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Dang! I was going to propose a very similar thing :D --Enric Naval (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz's change is good. But it does rather imply that the template will always comply with the guidelines. What if someone changes it so it no longer does? Changes are not obliged to follow guidelines - they are only guidelines. See the second below for my suggestions.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why people who care about having standardized warning templates watch those templates. People are free to make their own non-standardized templates, or use the old "test" templates, if they don't like this style. Anomie⚔ 12:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Any wikipedian is actually free to edit anything. Just as people did with blatant vandal. You cannot enforce standarisation.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be enforced through consensus, just like most of our existing guidelines. The current consensus is that Wikipedia should have a set of standardized user warning templates (with the "uw-" prefix to make them easy to find) for people to use if they wish, and that those templates should have a common appearance and a common language style. Anomie⚔ 14:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a consensus like that, outside some obsessives on a wikiproject. If I see a way of improving any template, or indeed any item on wikipedia, I am free to do so. If others disagree, they revert, and we discuss it. We don't enforce meta-rules, across swaths of items, for the sake of conformity. That's the original policy sin of wikiprojects.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that in the end we'll have to agree to disagree. The UW project was started (back in 2006?) with the aim of standardizing the existing system (which was a mess). After much discussion it was ultimately decided not to impose our views to everyone, and to fork the templates instead of forcing everyone to use the same standardization (which is something that I agree can't be done if it is not an official guideline). Not all warning templates have to begin with UW but why can't a group of people wish to improve a system by creating a set of standardized templates (with the same set of arguments, and similar wordings) in order to help tools such as twinkle to develop? I am not a participant here anymore, but I hope it is not forcing everyone to use the uw wording and style when creating a template. If that's the case, I'll come with the hatchet to cut the tree myself. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's not the reality. The blatantvandal template and it's redirect at {bv} were taken over by this wikiproject. If they want to create their own stuff, fine. But a) they can't OWN pages and b) they can't redirect well-used shortcuts to them.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

afaik they didn't, TfD did. Could I recommend everyone politely bugger orf and come back tomorrow, as I'm really seeing a storm in a teacup here, and alot of words are being bandied with no regards to good faith and assumption of cabals, power hungry wikiprojects or people taking ownership of templates. ^Khukri 15:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

From the specific to the general.

Ok, let's leave aside the blatanvandal particulars. I'd like to suggest two changes that would solved this going forward

1. Change the standard documentation from "this template has been carefully designed based on guidelines by the user warnings project" to "people changing this template may wish to refer to the guidelines by the user warnings project". The Uw-bv template was not created with guidelines in mind, and since we will never know whether the creator of a template was thinking of the guidelines, or was "careful", we'd best not attribute motive. Indeed what does it matter what the designer thought?
2. Can we not redirect all the talk pages of templates here and then tell people they MUST come here? Why not just have a note on the talk page suggesting it might be more effective? The problem is that whilst those interested in templates in general may watch here, some of us are only interested in afew of the 1,400 - so we just watch them. Further, it should be in order to place a note on a talk page to record a comment on the template that you wish people to see in future. Or to record a discussion why a certain specific change to THAT template was previously considered and rejected. If that can only be done on a page covering 1400 templates, then it will soon be lost in the archive and not seen. There's a difference between current discussion that needs noticed by as many people as possible instantly, and long term specific notes that need recorded in an accessible place. If a specific discussion begins on a talk page of a template, and is specific to that template, it may be best (sometimes) to flag it up here where the flag will be seen, but to leave the discussion there where it can be found later. Equally any specific discussions here, ought to be recorded on the talk page of the template for easy finding. Generalised discussions are, naturally, better centralised - but not by hitting people and removing their comments.

Thoughts?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point #1, and I see it was already done before your comment was posted. As for #2, I must disagree. Comments at the individual template pages tended to not get any attention, and this talk page isn't busy enough to be a hardship to watch (and probably will never get that busy). Anomie⚔ 12:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You still can't force people to come here. You can only suggest it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings. I wholeheartedly agree with you on principle, but having everyone discussing templates on a central place however favors broader inputs than the kind of discussion you will have on a single talk page. Achieving consensus on a page watched by 2 people is not really the same than discussing it with at least 10 people. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So suggest people come here. But don't enforce it. And don't redirect pages and move comments. If someone posts to a talk page, either suggest they come here for more input, or flag it here. A banner inviting people to consider coming here is better than enforcement. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You know very well people don't read the strange yellow boxes on talk pages ;). Doing so will result in drama too ("OMG you didn't discuss it on UTM, you are twisting longstanding consensus" "but I didn't know that"). As I said, I have mixed feelings about this :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Disallowing people from commenting on talk pages would be a very major policy change. Not something any wikiproject can decide. If anyone wants to change policy, then they should make a proposal and initiate a centralised discussion somewhere.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How would it be a major policy change? The choice to have a centralized discussion was formed via consensus in a fashion consistent with WP:MULTI. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MULTI does not suggest a ban on people placing remarks particular to one page on its talk page. I see no such consensus, and a wikiproject cannot legislate a ban for all other editors. You can suggest, and that's it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For my two cents, I agree with point 1. Sounds perfect. Point two also seems like a good plan. Suggest - don't enforce. Template talk pages are for discussing the template in question, redirects seem to add a stamp of ownership to the template. A centralised place for discussion, though, is an equally good idea - but it shouldn't be enforced in such a way. Perhaps a 'You may get a faster response if you ask your question at ...' box?> Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-sand/doc

Template:Uw-sand/doc 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. Anomie⚔ 18:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

New templates: uw-vandalism3vo and uw-vandalism4vo

Someone has decided to create two new vandalism warning templates: {{uw-vandalism3vo}} and {{uw-vandalism4vo}}; the intention seems to be to have a separate warning for "vandalism-only" accounts versus accounts that also make apparently-constructive edits. Personally, I don't see the point of having separate templates just to mention that vandalism-only accounts are often blocked indefinitely. What does everyone else think? Anomie⚔ 23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

These could be redirects, I suggest a TFD to that end. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

XfD is not used to establish redirect consensus. Has this been discussed with the user concerned? And frankly, if he want to create alternative templates, what on earth is the harm?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The user was invited here for discussion, and as you see below they have come. The only "harm" is that they are named as standardized warnings, so they should actually be standardized; what would be the point of having standardized warnings if they're not actually standardized? Anomie⚔ 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"What would be the point of having standardized warnings?" - beats me.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice misquoting. If that's the way you feel, why are you wasting your time on this page? Anomie⚔ 03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Because apparently this place controls all warning templates. So now it's "hey this place enforces standardisation, and if you don't agree with standardisation, sod off?". Resistance is useless, hey? I will be assimilated or run out of town?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're badly mistaken. "This place" is really only concerned with the standardized warnings: Special:PrefixIndex/Template:uw-. If people want to make and use non-standardized warnings, they're free to do so. They could discuss them here, although I haven't seen any lately. I suppose if they get discussed at all people do so on those template's talk pages (or wherever else they want). Anomie⚔ 16:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I created this because when it is established that an account has been used only for vandalism, they should be warned about an indefinite block. This makes it more likely for the vandal to turn around to do constructive edits. -- IRP ☎ 23:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I doubt an account that hits level 3 will turn around. These might work with a bit of renaming, maybe to {{uw-voa3}} and {{uw-voa4}} to better match the "vandalism-only account" moniker. MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be used if there are no constructive edits by the 3^rd warning after the first block. -- IRP ☎ 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I also question whether the threat of an indef block is really going to "turn around" a vandalism-only user any better than the existing templates; more likely, they'll either abandon the account or keep on until it is blocked and eventually create a new vandalism-only account. And I agree, uw-voa3 is a much better name than uw-vandalism3vo. Anomie⚔ 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If they abandon the account and do not create a new one, it will significantly reduce disruption. In my view, it will work as a deterrent for the vandals. IRP ☎ 04:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

But is it any more likely that they'll abandon the account on the threat of an indef block versus the regular template? Anomie⚔ 16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It does somewhat increase the probability that it will either make them abandon it sooner or otherwise turn around. Even though it may be low, it is still a chance, which would reduce disruption over time. -- IRP ☎ 16:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Does it really? If they're going to abandon it on the threat of blocking, the threat of indef blocking is probably not going to make much difference there; truth be told, I suspect the "VOA abandoned after a v3 warning" accounts are really "VOA creator sobered up/passed out/etc after the v3 warning", and had nothing to do with the actual warning. And if they're going to keep on until they're actually blocked, no threat of any sort is going to work. Anomie⚔ 18:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then what if there is a template created for blanking? That's the reason why I put "vandalism" in the template name. -- IRP ☎ 04:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Like {{uw-delete1/2/3/4/4im}}? Anomie⚔ 16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, like "{{uw-blank(3/4)vo}}" -- IRP ☎ 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were asking about making a warning about blanking, not another set of these "vandalism only" warnings of questionable utility. Anomie⚔ 18:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So, should these templates be moved to the suggested name? -- IRP ☎ 01:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, IRP, judging by my experience as a Huggle user, I can tell you that edits from someone who already has a level 3 warning are rarely constructive enough to even avoid getting a level 4 warning. As a matter of fact, it's as if these vandals don't even bother to read their talk page to see what the "You have new messages" prompt is about, and, when I have evidence that they actually do read their talk pages, the way I know is because they have vandalized the user page of whoever issued the warning. I think that since Huggle puts warned vandals under high surveillance (the higher the warning level, the higher the surveillance), the new templates do not give much in terms of protection against vandalism. I can tell you that vandals either stop after getting a level 1 or 2 warning, or make it all the way to an AIV report.

Additionally, you cannot assume that an account is vandalism-only based on a single edit. And actual vandals will respond to a threat of blocking with a "make my day" attitude. Just look at my {{user Vandalized}} template (on a protected user page, no less) to see what I mean. See WP:DNFTT. Point is, we already have adequate templates for level 3 and 4 warnings, and I would think that a newbie would assume that when these templates talk about blocking, they talk about indefinite blocking. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about when it becomes apparent that an account has been used only for vandalism. The vandalism3vo will be given in place of the 3^rd warning after the first block is released. -- IRP ☎ 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Category Removal

I see that there is a template, Template:Uw-badcat, for those who add bad categories. Is there one for people who remove good categories? If not, should we make one? Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The uw-delete series might apply. Anomie⚔ 18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. Thanks; I don't know why I didn't think of that. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates for creating bad articles?

Is there one of these? I can't seem to find it, but I may just not be looking hard enough. TheXenocide (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Might you mean the {{uw-create}} series? --MCB (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Uw-3rr

I think this template may be worded a bit harshly, and some people leave it as a threat. It could be made clear that the intention of this warning is to alert the editor/make them aware of the 3RR in order to stop them from going beyond 3R in 24hrs, which would result in a block. Obviously the wording could be tidied up a bit more. Verbal chat 12:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that we also have {{uw-3rr-alt}}, and a series {{uw-3rr1/2/3/4}}. Some of those should probably be merged somehow. Anomie⚔ 13:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget {{3RR4}} and {{3RR}} MBisanz ^talk 14:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR is definitely harsher than most initial templates, but I think it probably needs to be. Unlike many transgressions, violations of the 3 revert rule will often be blocked after just one warning (and sometimes with no warning). That being said, we do appear to have an unneccessary number of uw 3rr warnings. At a minimum, uw-3rr should probably redirect to uw-3rr1. Uw-3rr1 looks slightly gentler in that at least the bolding language is not bolded.--Kubigula (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Test Wikipedia on uw-test1?

Template uw-test1 now has a link to Test Wikipedia as a place for users to go instead of doing editing tests on wikipedia. But Test Wikipedia is for Mediawiki coders. uw-test1 is for newbies who don't even know how to edit wikipedia, much less hack on mediawiki code. My first thought was that some alternate wiki had been set up where people could hack all they wanted (like the sandbox).

A link to Test Wikipedia does not belong on uw-test1. ScottJ (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I've removed the link from the uw-test* templates. Anomie⚔ 22:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammar change needed

{{editsemiprotected}} Change "For other possible reason" to "For other possible reasons" 211.30.109.24 (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see which text you are talking about? is it in the {{editsemiprotected}} template or somewhere else? Thanks ^Khukri 08:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No sorry, i didn't realize the talk page was redirected to the whole template messages. Change the above in this template. Thanks 211.30.109.24 (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, good catch! Anomie⚔ 11:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

my take on ppl and this template

Ppl aren't using this template like they should. I see ppl revert their own tests, but no one warns them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IForgotToEatBreakFast (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to warn anybody who self-reverts. That template is ridiculous. 86.44.30.104 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is, it points people to the WP:Sandbox so they don't have to screw up the articles, no matter how temporarily. Anomie⚔ 02:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-editsummary}}

The edit summary template needs an addition to warn the user why it is necessary to use an edit summary. Simply telling them not to is virtually irrelevant. I added "lest it be construed as vandalism" to tell them to pull their sock up. Lihaas (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The link to edit summary explains it all, and the warning would only just be duplicating what the help page says though it could do with a please read here maybe. ^Khukri 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Except it's not "lest it be construed as vandalism"; anyone who reverts an edit as vandalism solely because there was no edit summary is being disruptive. The purpose of the summary is to help your fellow editors know what you've done without having to dig through the diff, it facilitates collaboration. If anything, I would suggest revising your addition to something like "good edit summaries make it easier to work with your fellow Wikipedians". Anomie⚔ 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed the vandalism part until it's reworded so everyone's happy. ^Khukri 09:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

As an editor who (finally) took the time to visit this page, I'm amazed at the pure number of warning messages that can be used for vandalism. It seems quite daunting as I don't want to possibly use the wrong one. I realize that there are many situations and vandalisim edits that occur, but speaking from the point of view of someone not intimately familiar with Wikipedia policies, properly dealing with vandalism isn't anything one can do without doing a not-unsubstantial amount of research and learning first. If it's possible, I would suggest toning down the amount of warnings (or making a simplified page with only the most commonly used warnings) so users like me who want to contribute but are unable to go through the many hoops to learn how to do it correctly. Please be kind! --Resplendent (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed a lot of templates, each of which is to be used in a specific situation. But I know of no one, even among the most experienced administrators, who knows all of them. Indeed, no one needs to know all of them. I say that, since the template {{uw-vandalism}} is the most generic and is listed at the very top, there is no need for a simplified list. What could be done is to increase that template's prominence. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes that would indeed help. If newbies to this page can see there is a "catch all" then I imagine they would be more likely to use them (correctly) and better assist in combating vandalism. --Resplendent (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another joke template

Someone has created {{uw-tweak}} as something "humorous". Personally, I don't see the point. Anomie⚔ 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This one is meant to be addressed to someone with whom you collaborate on a regular basis. It should not be on the "official" list of warning templates, but there is no harm in keeping it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

test edits using the preview button?!

i'm sorry to see that some templates now suggest using the "show preview" button for test edits, as an option to the sandbox. that seems like a misuse of the preview function, and i really encourage changing the templates back to pointing out that the sandbox is the proper place for test edits. thanks Sssoul (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I use the preview button to test things all the time. Whether that should be promoted to newbies, though, I'm not sure. Anomie⚔ 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

given that "test edit" is so often a euphemism for vandalism, it truly seems like the sandbox is the right place. would someone please revise these templates so that they leave the "show preview button" out of it? please! Sssoul (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think it would be too easy to accidentally hit the save page button while trying to use preview on a mainspace article. I have changed the uw-selfrevert and uw-test series of templates. swaq 18:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) thank you kindly, Swaq! Sssoul (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New section - foreign-language contributors

As I got no feedback on my proposal to add a section on {{welcomeen-xx}} templates, I went ahead and made the addition. There are currently six languages for which such templates exist, and there is a generic English-only template that may be used for other languages. As far as I can tell, the six languages are among the most frequently seen, but I would very much like to see templates created for German, Chinese, Arabic, and Farsi. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: German has just been added. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of uw-ifu*

Someone has nominated {{uw-ifu1}}, {{uw-ifu2}}, {{uw-ifu3}}, {{uw-ifu4}}, and {{uw-ifu4im}} for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Images for upload templates. Anomie⚔ 05:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

UW templates for CSD

Someone has recently moved the following templates:

• Template:Db-a9-notice → Template:Uw-csd-a9
• Template:Db-badfairuse-notice → Template:Uw-csd-i7
• Template:Db-badfiletype-notice → Template:Uw-csd-i10

While I can easily enough adjust them to match the UW style (for example, this for uw-csd-a9), I'm not sure if the CSD people would really like that done; they have their own style for their notices, so it might be better to just move the templates back to their naming style. Opinions? Anomie⚔ 13:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I, as a CSD person, would not mind adjusting them at all. We have at the moment three different types of CSD warnings (for historic reasons apparently):

• The ones listed in the db templates, e.g. {{nn-warn}} for A7
• The ones originially created for Twinkle, e.g. {{db-a7-notice}}
• The ones used by Huggle, e.g. {{Huggle/db-bio-notice}}

They all have their own quirks and requirements, which should be collected before any moves are performed so that they can be unified (and I personally would move them back until then).
For example, I recently changed the Twinkle and Huggle variants to automatically add a {{firstarticle}} welcome message if the notice is placed on a non-existant page. I'm not sure how open the UW people are to such behaviour.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If the strengths of those different templates can be combined, I'd say go for it. I do not think people are opposed to good changes like the one you describe, but let's see. I for one see no problems standardizing those templates. Regards SoWhy 14:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to move a few to these new names - no special preference other than not being move protected. I think that we should have a standardized system for CSD warning templates within the user warning system. The way I think things should be is:

• {{uw-csd-*#}} for each CSD - {{uw-csd-g1}}, {{uw-csd-g2}} etc.
• {{uw-csd-*#-subtype}} for subtypes of CSD's, e.g {{uw-csd-g8-talk}}, {{uw-csd-g8-redirnone}}
• {{uw-csd-*#-[subtype-]deleted}} for admins to warn users who haven't been warned when the page was tagged, or if the page is deleted without being tagged first. (We currently have such warnings, e.g {{empty-warn-deletion}} and {{nn-warn-deletion}})

I figured to be bold and move a few, then wait a few days - this way it can be reverted without too much trouble if others disagree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll even volunteer to create the uw-csd-* templates, if there are no objections. The style would be similar to {{uw-repost}} and my sandbox version of uw-csd-a9, which can be tweaked if necessary (in particular, would be better than  ?). The uw style is that headers should not be included by default, but a parameter to include an optional header can certainly be included; {{firstarticle}} could also be included when header is specified, and the existing db-* variants could be done in a way to automatically pass that parameter instead of being simple redirects if that is desired.

I may actually go ahead and create the uw-csd-* versions soon-ish, although the redirecting of the db-* versions should have discussion at the relevant talk pages (e.g. WT:CSD, Twinkle's talk page, etc). Anomie⚔ 17:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

With some of the current CSD warning templates (such as {{nn-warn}}), the header isn't there by default. . עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The different notices are currently offering quite a range of features. E.g.:

• The {{db-attack-notice}} and {{db-vandalism-notice}} will remove the "thank you for your contributions" sentence from the {{firstarticle}} welcome notice
• All a* templates are placing a link to the article's talk page, as a convenience for the author to place the hangon tag. That can't be done for most of the others, since the only input Twinkle (and, potentially, Huggle) are currently giving is the qualified page name (wgPageName), and to the best of my knowledge there is no template or parser function trick that can deliver the talk namespace from the qualified page name

I'd offer to create them all, too, but most probably could only start after christmas. --Amalthea 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Huggle templates are not templates in the usual sense of the word. They are instructions to Huggle as to what it should output; part of Huggle's configuration. As with the uw- templates incompatibility between them is a given -- Gurch (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New template: uw-affiliate

Someone has recently created {{uw-affiliate}}. It seems to me that this is redundant to {{uw-spam1/2/3/4/4im}} and should probably be redirected to {{uw-spam1}}. I may be missing something though, any thoughts? Anomie⚔ 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a template specifically for affiliate marketing is sort of useful, actually, since it zeroes right in on a significant problem which is more specific (and sometimes harder to catch) than plain old spam or link spam, specifically the case of modifying an existing legitimate link to include an affiliate referral code; those are hard to catch except with history diffs or on your watchlist, since the rendered appearance of the link is often unchanged. I think I'll add a few words to it, though, to mention changing links as well as adding them (without, of course, wandering into [[WP:BEANS|the bean patch). --MCB (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I created it after I saw the following recent changes at Urban Rivals by four different IP editors: [3] [4] [5] [6]. I am not particularly attached to the wording of the template, but I couldn't spot anything else suitable. (The article in question is not the best either; the irony is that I had earlier edited it to point out that the game uses affiliate marketing itself.[7])--Rumping (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-c&pmove}}

I think the wording on this needs to be strengthened a bit. Instead of saying that copy-paste moves are "considered undesirable", it should really say that the moves are prohibited. Severing the page from the edit history prevents the editors of the article from being given credit (one of the terms of the GDFL), thus voiding the GDFL. That is slightly more than "undesirable". Parsecboy (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look around at pages such as WP:MOVE but couldn't find anything that said it was prohibited per se, though I agree it should be strengthened. The best way to to change the wording to reflect the present guideline or policy and also provide a link the the current documentation. ^Khukri 09:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any related policy or guideline that specifically covers copy-paste moves either, but it seems to me that any action that effectively makes an article unusable should be prohibited. The most clear wording I could find was here: "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.)" Perhaps it would be helpful to strengthen the language at WP:MOVE a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

New template: uw-rollback

Someone has recently created {{uw-rollback}}. It seems like a useful template to me, but I'm not sure about the formatting. We have "warning" templates, and "block" templates, but this is something new: a "your group membership has been revoked" template. I'm tempted to format it as a block template, but I'm open to any better suggestions (including the current "format as a warning but using the block icon"). I'm also tempted to rename it to {{uw-rollbackremoved}}, as "uw-rollback" strikes me as a warning about the use of rollback (which apparently is not given, misuse == lose it). But I could be off-base here. Anomie⚔ 04:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd maybe suggest asking for the opinion of the fellas at WT:ROLLBACK as it is their baby. We need to know how they treat rollback misuse as they may want a one or two strikes and then yer out system, so we'd maybe also need a level one or two warning, but depends on what they want. Ask them to visit here for input. I agree with everything you've said above about using block template format and a different name. Though I would also suggest it needs at least one parsered link to provide a link to the reason for why it was removed or the RfC or arbcom decision, etc. ^Khukri 09:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the modifications to the template, pending any further comment, and notified WT:ROLLBACK. I'll update the documentation later, once it is decided whether any prior warning is necessary/desirable. As for a warning series, IMO it isn't necessary. A single-issue warning (at {{uw-rollback}}) would probably cover any warning needs. Anomie⚔ 13:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I was told that people who abuse the rollback feature should not be given any warnings. Abusing rollback is potentially more disruptive than to leave vandalistic edits in place. Misusing the rollback feature can drive away good editors. -- IRP ☎ 14:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I made some edits to the template. See the template history. -- IRP ☎ 15:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've undone your change to the icon, the format used is the UW style for blocking templates (which this seems most similar to). I've left your removal of the "reason" parameter for the moment, although I think it should go back in per Khukri's reasoning. Anomie⚔ 16:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks kind of messy when the stop X is off of the message box. I've decreased the size of the X instead. If it shouldn't have been done, feel free to undo it using this link. -- IRP ☎ 19:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is mostly fine, but it could be better if it is vertically centered. -- IRP ☎ 21:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the global css adds a 0.5em bottom margin to floated content. I suppose you could try something like <div style="clear:both;margin-bottom:-0.5em"></div> instead of {{clear}} to counteract that, but I don't know if that might break some other browser. Or you could just come up with some multi-line text to put in the box so this isn't an issue ;) Anomie⚔ 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments moved from Template talk:Redlink

Rewrite

So thoughts on the rewrite? A few people expressed interest in having it as a general over-linking template which would likely reference WP:CONTEXT. What sort of wording do people have in mind for this?

Thank you for your contribution to wikipedia. During one of your recent edits I noticed that you were linking to pages which didn't add anything(hrm maybe something else here?) to the article or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see wikipedia's guideline on links at WP:CONTEXT

Just a quick bit, obviously needs some work, but I think its a start.--Crossmr 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How about {{manylinks}}:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In recent edits you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you.

...with "an article" being an optional parameter for the name of the article mentioned? -- nae'blis 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I like that, and the name is good. I think its critical to include the article name, and preferably at least 1 diff if possible, through an optional url= in the use. There has been talk lately of making sure warnings and other such things like that include links to diffs to help clarify the warning and put it in context. Do you happen to know how to go about putting that in?--Crossmr 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's tougher to teach people to use them, but the named parameter is the usual way to avoid confusion in that manner. I can do that if that's the consensus for how this template should work, yes. -- nae'blis 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is fine, but from what I've seen it can be hidden in the template which means if they don't use, it just doesn't get displayed. Building it with the ability to tie a diff into it shouldn't hamper those who don't want to include a diff, or forget for whatever reason, would it?--Crossmr 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, they'd both be optional, like the "|Article" parameter above. -- nae'blis 05:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If the name is to be "manylinks", then the text should also say "you added many links". — Sebastian (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not tied to the name; {{toomanylinks}} seemed too long, and {{overlinked}} is taken. Other ideas? -- nae'blis 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with changing the text? Anyway, here's another idea for the name: "overlinked1" or "overlink1". We should have a number for the level anyway, and 1 is appropriate because it's a general note. A case could be made for 0, too, but then the wording would need to be a bit nicer IMO. — Sebastian 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"you added many links to an article... or repeated the same link" looks funny to me somehow (I'm sure my English teacher could tell me why). But if I'm crazy and it looks fine to most other people, let's go with that. It's a template, it can be tweaked later. :) -- nae'blis 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, I have rewritten the template based on the discussion above, but have not moved it to a new name yet as there seems to be some discussion left to hold on that subject. Likewise, I did not removed the red header bar. -- nae'blis 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I'm okay with manylinks or if overlinked is taken, what about overlink, or excesslink--Crossmr 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The real issue

The real issue here is irrelevant linking, which is completely independent of the color of the link, or how many times the link is repeated, or how many other links there are. Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but I think this is something that has to be phrased carefully so users don't get the wrong idea. I mean, it's okay to link to titles that don't exist yet, and it's perfectly acceptable to link to the same title more than once in the same article, or even the same section if there are several intermediate paragraphs, or even on several rows of the same table if it helps create a more consistent/attractive layout. We don't want to inadvertently teach clueless newcomers that usefulness is a crime. (as if {{Mosdab}} nimrodry doesn't already have that effect — CharlotteWebb 08:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That is what we discussed in the AfD and that is what we changed the template to reflect. There is no mention of colour of links in the template at all now, nor do any of the new name suggestions have anything to do with color.--Crossmr 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New templates

• {{uw-Lèse majesté4im}} - Yet another template that is trying to be funny (and IMO failing).
• {{uw-spoiler}}
• {{uw-multiple-accts}}

Anomie⚔ 22:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• {{subst:uw-revertvandalism}} - For (kindly) alerting good-faith editors that delete vandalized sections rather than checking the page history first.

--Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 19:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

New template: uw-imageuse

Someone has created {{uw-imageuse}}, apparently to warn about people trying to use external links in infobox "image" parameters. Does this really happen often? Anomie⚔ 12:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

More likely, about someone who tries to use such an image anywhere in an article. And this does happen quite a lot. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that happen quite a lot on huggle that's why I created it. Such edits usually get reverted by User:XLinkBot though. –Capricorn42 (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Additions to uw-auto?

After templating a guy who'd added himself to an article about a client of his because he'd been told it was the only way to get himself into Wikipedia, I'd like to add "your clients/customers" and "your employer" to the list of things inappropriate to be writing about. Comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

uw-auto is for autobiographies per se. I'd say a better place for this is uw-coi. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed duplicate "thank you" from Uw-error1

I'm all for not biting newbies, but to thank someone twice for experimenting is overdoing AGF. I therefore removed the initial sentence and moved the if clause for the article name into the next sentence. — Sebastian 22:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This referred to {{Uw-error1}}. (Grr - I wasn't aware there was a talk page redirect!) On second thought, maybe it would be nice to have a somewhat more friendly approach for this level-1 template. The situation in which I used it was here; a user had changed the word "grandfather" to "father" against the existing ref. The situation called for level 2, because it was a clear case of falsifying information. However, {{Uw-error2}} was not appropriate because it called the user a "vandal", which, assuming good faith, was not the only possible explanation; there was still an off chance that the user was confused. I think I'll address that more generally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings. — Sebastian 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to uw-error1 broke the subst=subst: parameter. I think I fixed it, but please be more careful when modifying warning templates. swaq 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm out of practice with templates. — Sebastian 09:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note lvl2 was never intend as AGF, it was deemed a faith neutral warning, which was why it doesn't say you are a vandal just that your edits could appear to be vandalism. ^Khukri 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe; I remember it vaguely from two years ago. I now tend to think that wasn't very smart of us: Since the lvl-1 templates usually have a welcome message, then can only be reasonably used for newbies. If the lvl-2 template does not assume good faith, then there is no way to post a message to a non-newbie without violating AGF. — Sebastian 09:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

request new warning or single issue message

does there exist, or is it possible to create a warning or single issue message regarding editors leaving unnecessarily caustic, nasty messages in edit summaries? --emerson7 18:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What about {{uw-wrongsummary}}? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

UW-blocked

Would the UW-block series be improved if we replaced the "unblock" string with {{unblock|Your reason here}}? That is simpler both in the edit window and in the display window (as it links to the unblock template, which gives some documentation, though not a lot) than {{unblock|''your reason here''}}. Perhaps:

<!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}}  

What does everyone think? Protonk (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've changed most of them now, on the basis that silence implies consent. Let me know if I have missed any or messed anything up. Protonk (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

INCONSISTENT:uw-biog4im for any CONTROVERSIAL content or just DEFAMATORY content?

Twinkle (I think) says uw-biog4im is for CONTROVERSIAL content (when I use the 'warn' menu) but warns about DEFAMATORY content. I'm not sure how this would be fixed. Suggestions? Is a change to Twinkle or the template more appropriate?--Elvey (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Twinkle says the warning is for: "Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons", BUT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-biog4im says this is the template content, and it's what is added:

The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This was fixed! :)

Can the sandbox be used to test user warnings?

According to the sandbox use guide, the sandbox shouldn't be used for user warning/block templates. This is because it may make the newcomers think they have done something wrong, or that they had been blocked - good reasons which stem from WP:BITE. However, in the warning template about misuse of these templates, {{Uw-tempabuse}}, we instruct users to "Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do". I think this should be retargeted to User talk:Sandbox for user warnings, which is a sandbox where tests with these templates are clearly allowed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For this particular template, it makes sense to me. I've been bold and changed it. Toliar (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Level 3, Level 4 and Level 4im warnings

...Are these warning levels allowed to be used by non-admins?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Everything but block messages and protection messages may be used. However, misusing these template messages is looked down upon by a lot of members of the community, for a variety of reasons. Any user (including administrators) should be cautious about their use. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Should subst-required welcome templates block non-subst use?

Should {{welcome}} and other user-welcome templates be required to use subst: at the time of the edit? Currently, a bot comes by and does the subst: if a user forgets.

If you forget to subst {{Prod}}, it displays {{prod}} {{subst:empty template|This template must be substituted. Replace {{prod|reason}} with {{subst:prod|reason}}.}} plus some other stuff. It puts a lot of that text in big red letters.

Granted, user welcome tempaltes aren't dated, so it's okay to bot-subst them later. However, having this warning and blocking non-subst use will save the bot some effort and keep clutter out of change logs. The downside is people may get shocked and abandon the edit.

Should this change be made? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• If they are subst'd by the bot later I think that it is ok. Protonk (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning for adding COPYVIO?

Seems pretty basic so I assume I'm missing it... Is there a warning for someone who's added material that is a copyright violation? I was looking at this page: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 00:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is in the "single issue warnings", see {{Uw-copyright}}. Protonk (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I missed it on the RIGHT side. Thanks. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 01:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Restricted scope of Uw-move*

The wording of {{uw-move2}} and {{uw-move3}} is limited to situations during page move discussions. These warnings should also cover cases where pages are moved in violation of consensus, after a discussion has completed e.g. someone proceeds to move a page after a consensus was reached to leave a page name unchanged. Dl2000 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• What would you like them to say? They are only semi-protected right now, so you can make the changes yourself, but I'm curious what the changes would be. Protonk (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Here are some proposed wordings - on further thought, WP:NAME should also be included among the warnings as was included in {{uw-move1}}:

For {{uw-move2}}:

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

For {{uw-move3}}:

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

How do these wordings look? Dl2000 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Dl2000 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

New templates

I've been on semi-wikibreak (and am still trying), but here are the new UW templates created lately:

• {{uw-csd}} - For an admin decline of a CSD on an article.
• {{uw-redlink}} - For using redlinks in talk page posts. Seems like an odd thing to poke someone about, but whatever.
• {{uw-v1-h}}, {{uw-v2-h}}, {{uw-t1-h}} - Copy of {{uw-v1}}/{{uw-v2}}/{{uw-t1}} with section headers. IMO, these are absolutely useless, and we certainly don't need "uw-*-h" duplicates of every single other uw-* template (which is where this leads).

Anomie⚔ 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC) updated 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That redlink one should be deleted out of hand, if ever there is anything that gives templated messages a bad rep it's this sort of thing, creating a template where a personalised messge would suffice is never acceptable. The headers one should be deleted as well, automated headers and numbering etc have been/were discussed a number of times and thrown out. There's no point having a standardised system, and then create another set with header, of identical wording because someone doesn't want to type ==Feb 2009==. I've heard the excuse used that "we'll I deal with alot of vandals" if you cannot take time to type a few characters then I would question the amount of time that is being taken to fully investigate the vandalism and the issuing of the correct lvl warnings etc. CSD one isn't a user warning, it's a procedural template, not what UW was designed for. delete them all. Cheers for keeping an eye out though Anomie ;) ^Khukri 12:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I created {{uw-v1-h}}, {{uw-v2-h}}, and don't see the problem, but admittedly this is new territory for me. These templates are certainly useful to me at least, otherwise I wouldn't have created them. And the ability to generate a new section header by simply appending "-h" to the standard warning template seems like an unmitigated improvement. What I am I missing here? If the problem is simply that for some reason you'd rather not have them being with "uw-", then I be happy to rename them something else. Yilloslime (t) 21:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I, too, don't see the usefulness of uw-redlink. Sometimes, someone will insert an intentional redlink like this one to make a point or to point out that such andsuch article should be created either from scratch or as a redirect, and, when a redlink is unintentional, it can be fixed rather easily. Personally, I haven't seen too many people for whom this would be problematic enough to justify templating. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the usefullness of uw-redlink, but I think that the others are fine. I would prefer not to proliferate template messages (already too many of the gorram things anyway), but I don't think that's a huge worry. As a note for Yillo, if you use TW, a new header will be formed per month automatically. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking to red links on discussion pages is usually not the result of a typo - either the link was blue when the link was placed, or an intentional link to a non-existent (or more likely, a previously deleted) page was used. Reasons for using red links in discussion may include:

1. Discussing a deletion of the page - a red link to the page makes it easier for the admin to check it.
2. Discussing a potential name for a not-yet created page, or the proper place to move an already existing page to.
3. When discussing a potential page, mentioning that a related page has not yet been created.

In the rare case when a red link was accidental, I think a personalized message is more appropriate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

{{editprotected}} Change the protection template. It should be the red padlock, not grey/silver, because it isn't semi-protected on {{uw-vandalism1}} and others. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 22:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Done: I updated {{uw-vandalism1}} with {{pp-template}} to reflect its current protection state. However the other two-dozen templates I quasi-randomly checked were already set correctly, so just drop another editprotected request here if you find any others that need to be update. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fails when article names have a = in them

It seems that when an article name has '=' in it, the uw-templates don't work correctly. For example, {{subst:uw-vandalism2|P = NP problem}} produces:

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.

as if the article name hadn't been specified at all. A workaround is to use "%3D" instead: {{subst:uw-vandalism2|P %3D NP problem}} produces:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to P = NP problem. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

This ought to be either fixed or mentioned in the documentation, right? Shreevatsa (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a problem with every template and not only with these. You have to use {{uw-vandalism|1=P = NP problem}} (note the "1="-part) to explicitly have the software understand that the part is the first parameter's value and not a parameter=value annotation. Regards SoWhy 23:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a way of including this in documentation? The "1=" trick seems pretty hard to find... Shreevatsa (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Warn headings

The article says the following:

• Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings". Note: If there have been multiple warnings, add the template {{s/wnote}} (or {{repeat vandal}} if the account has been repeatedly blocked) at the top of the Warnings section.

However, in my experience, most editors seem to put the warning templates under a date header instead of a warnings header. When I make mine, I will generally use == Warning(s) == and on the next line, February 2009, January 2009, ect. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth storm (talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 February 2009

Personally, I typically do not add the higher-level "Warnings" header until a couple of months worth of warnings have accumulated. Then -while I am at it- I will often a shared IP header (for anonymous editors) and also archive old warnings. As an example, see before and after. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think it's better to throw the warnings header on there, then if other editors need to go in there and add a template, all they need to do is add the date, and the template. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Huggle automatically uses date headers instead of the "warning" header. The advantage of this method is that it allows the person issuing the warning to identify warnings that have gone stale. This is especially important when dealing with IPs. Let's say an IP has only four messages on its talk page: warning levels 1-2-3-4, but no block. All are dated 2005. That IP vandalizes again, in 2009. Will we report that person to WP:AIV without "further" warning? I think not. For one thing, it is unlikely that it's the same person. Having the date header makes cases like this abundantly clear. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, when we do it the way we do now, you get pages like this, [8] with multiple date headings for the same month. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that page does not show how we do it. For example, that page has 2007 under a single-level header for the year ( =2007= ), which we do not do. The multiple "February 2009" entries were all created by ClueBot (talk · contribs), perhaps because of a bug in the programming. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that this ClueBot bug has already been reported [9]. --Kralizec! (talk)

So what should we do? I say, there is no reason we cant follow the guidelines, it streamlines things, IMO. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

contents

The text of this warning focuses on libidinous information, but it should reflect also personal information such as real name, children's names, diseases, etc. Kingturtle (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the uw warning talk pages redirect here for centralized discussion. Can you be specific about which template you are concerned about?--Kubigula (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Errata

I do a reasonable amount of anti - vandal work with Huggle, and I have noticed that I am frequently at a loss for the right, most appropriate, warning for a given type of edit. Having looked through Huggle's options, I decided to check the user talk warning templates. Nope. As far as I can tell, this doesn't have what I want either. I guess.. What seems needed to me is a 4-level warning template for improper tone. I'm a template virgin, so this doesn't seem like somewhere I ought just jump in 'fools jump in where angels fear to tread' and all that happy horses#!t. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with links to File Talk pages

I just put a uw-speedy1 warning on a User's page for removing a db tag from a File: page. The warning came out like this:

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from File:Kaspersky.jpg, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's [[Talk:File:Kaspersky.jpg|talk page]].

The link should have been to File talk:Kaspersky.jpg. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this can be fixed now with the new namespace and pagename parser functions, I've beefed up {{Talk}} to deliver talk pages of arbitrary pages, e.g. {{Talk|File:Kaspersky.jpg}} → File talk:Kaspersky.jpg, and fixed the warnings. Cheers, Amalthea 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

uw-coinp?

When I template editors (s.p.a.s and spamusernames especially) about COI using the standard uw-coi, they whine back that, "It's not really spamming or conflict of interest because it's for a worthy cause/non-for-profit/doing God's work". I'm thinking of creating a uw-coinp template that warns editors against COI edits on behalf of non-profit groups, worthwhile causes, etc. Any reactions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 15:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to adjust {{uw-coi}}; what would {{uw-coinp}} say? Anomie⚔ 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

test4, test4im, tdel4im

I've reverted the substitution of {{uw-test4}} for {{uw-generic4}} and the addition of {{uw-test4im}} and {{uw-tdel4im}}. Test4 says to use generic4 for a fairly good reason; when test edits get to the point where the user may need to be blocked, it's generally pretty unclear whether they are actually performing tests or are deliberately making unproductive edits. As to test4im and tdel4im, both cases are generally good faith mistakes and likely should never be given "immediate" level warnings. If the test edits are that disruptive, it's pretty likely simple vandalism or page blanking, and I can't see a situation where template deletion merits an immediate warning to stop. In the case of repeat offense, the simple level 4 would suffice one would think. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you do if:

What do you do if a person has made 5 vandlism edits and you aren't an admin? Please help because I've found a few people already like that. KezianAvenger (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If they have received a level four warning and continued to vandalize, you can report them at WP:AIV for admin attention.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Uw-copyright; March changes

In March, the language of Template:Uw-copyright was altered with the purpose of being less bitey, here. I noted and liked the changes, personally. I see that yesterday it was altered back without any reason provided in edit summary, here. Lacking any explanation, I have restored the March revision pending some discussion of the matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

About User Page vandalism template

Would it be reasonable to have multiple levels of Template:Uw-upv, just like for article vandalism? There are people who just go around blanking people's user pages, but there isn't really a progression of warnings for people who repeatedly vandalize other user pages. Just a thought. --Pstanton (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When these templates were started one of the aims was to try and reduce the plethora of templates. Vandalism is vandalism no matter where it is carried out. So the upv/tpv templates would be used once, then the V2/3 template. Once the intial warning has been given, it's not like the offendee would have any doubt why the template was being issued. ^Khukri 07:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, thanks, I suppose thats pretty logical. --Pstanton (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

merge vblock and uw-vblock?

I guess {{vblock}} and {{uw-vblock}} should be merged, probably with the first redirecting to the second. There is no need to keep two different templates to say the same. - Nabla (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - sounds reasonable to me. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The wording of {{uw-vblock}} is better. Finell (Talk) 19:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that vblock should redirect to uw-vblock.--Kubigula (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Making template messages consistent

Some of the warning messages end by saying that if the misconduct continues, "you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." Other end, "you will be blocked." I believe that the language should be consistent. I prefer the first version because it is clearer. Finell (Talk) 19:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a slight reword of uw-3rr

In connection with a current dispute, I realized one thing that might be fueling some revert wars- that people may believe failure to enforce their preferred version is tantamount to capitulation in the editing dispute. I think the wording of {{uw-3rr}} should be amended to include something like "Ceasing reverts and attempting discussion does not imply capitulation on your part". Any thoughts on this? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reword of the description for the uw-error series

As a result of WP:TWBUGS#TW-B-282, I'd like to suggest the description for the uw-error series of templates be reworded to remove "deliberate" or replace it with "apparent", since at least at the first two levels of warning, we're supposed to assume good faith that the reverted edit was accidental or unintentional as a result of not understanding our rules. "Deliberate" suggests malice, which would be the opposite of an assumption of good faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As I just added at WP:TW/BUG#282, I misunderstood your request. I changed the edit summary for thw first two levels of that warning to omit "deliberate". Amalthea 14:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material is not prohibited

It's a little distressing that the uw-unsourced templates describe a policy that is not actually true. They say that "adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability." In fact, according to both WP:CITE and WP:V, only material that's potentially controversial needs to be referenced.

The particular reasons that I care is (1) the tendency for every sentence in an article (even obvious ones) to include a footnote, thus decreasing readability, and (2) the potential for unconstructive edits where people delete unreferenced but uncontroversial text, just for spite. Axlrosen (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Do you have a suggested rewording? Anomie⚔ 00:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of "adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability," how about simply "any changes must be consistent with our policy of verifiability"? If that's too short, maybe "any text that's potentially controversial must include a citation from a reliable source." Axlrosen (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the latter, mostly because I'm pessimistic that they'd follow the link to WP:V. But maybe I'm too pessimistic. Hopefully the other lurkers here will give us more opinions. ;) Anomie⚔ 11:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Or we could borrow from Uw-biog1. It's strange that the 2 are so divergent. How about "Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware that any controversial statements added to any Wikipedia page must include proper sources. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you." Axlrosen (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, the person giving a uw-unsourced warning is only doing so because someone added a controversial unsourced statement. However, we know these warnings are not always used as intended and I certainly agree that the warning should mirror policy as closely as possible. I like the above suggested wording, borrowed from biog1. However, I suggest a small addition - "..please be aware that any potentially controversial statements..." I think that's inline with policy and avoids any argument over whether the unsourced addition was really controversial. It's enough if it gets challenged.--Kubigula (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Genre troll templates

Template:Uw-genre1/2/3 etc. are three new templates aimed specifically at genre trolls. I was wondering what the community thought of them and if others agree that they're of some good use? Thoughts much welcomed. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a brilliant idea. Way overdue. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good, we should add them to the twinkle function, so they can be used more readily. Genre trolls are such a common pest amongst music articles, it will be very useful.— R² 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd new template

Someone recently created {{uw-spam4alt}} "to prevent confusion"; it seems the only difference from {{uw-spam4}} is instead of "you will be blocked" it says "you will be reported and may be blocked". Seems useless to me, if such rewording is necessary then it should applied to all the level-4 templates instead of creating a parallel template (or a whole parallel level) just for wishy-washiness. Anomie⚔ 20:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If a contributor makes such mistakes as to allow himself to receive a level 4 template, then blocking is certain. No need to specify the process. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Warnings" is a bad heading

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I moved the discussion to WT:UW where it belongs, sorry for the mess.
—Apis (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

---

How can I assume good faith if I slam up a template under a big 'Warnings' (!) heading? I think it should be called something friendlier and more neutral. Someone who's better at english than I am can probably come up with a better title, but calling it 'notices' would be better at the very least.
—Apis (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the warning templates don't even post a heading. Can you point to a specific template? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the standardized warnings (those named beginning "uw-") should be including a heading at all by default; some few have an optional parameter to include one for backwards compatibility with older templates. But I think Apis was referring to the "Layout" suggested at the top of WT:UTM, that many people tend to ignore. Anomie⚔ 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Anomie is right; sorry, probably should have made that clearer. (And I also suspect that might be one of the reasons why it's being ignored but one can't really know for sure of course.)
—Apis (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

mangled UW wikicode

Can anybody explain this:

I slapped a uw-vandalism2 warning on blocked user ThePenthouseLord, but the final product turned out to be like this:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia{{{{subst:#ifeq:|subst:|subst:}}#if:Wikipedia:Template messages|, as you did to Wikipedia:Template messages}}. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Why is the garbage text in there when I used a proper user warning. If anyone can fix the templates, that would be great. thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• You didn't substitute the template. The documentation on {{Uw-vandalism2}} shows how to apply it. The template must be substituted and then the piped article will show up properly. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed my latest UWs and added subst: to the code. Have been used to just slapping the uw-XXXX code. thanks.--Eaglestorm (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I very rarely add them manually so I had to check to make sure that was what was causing it. Protonk (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that, until User:MC10 screwed it up a few days ago, the templates would display correctly when not substed. I've reverted those edits now. Anomie⚔ 12:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates

Removal of most maintenance templates is usually to be encouraged (see Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page. So why the warnings? --PBS (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus for your position in that discussion, and in fact your proposal is listed at the list of frequently rejected proposals. Anomie⚔ 21:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The warnings are for unjustified removal thereof. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Level 4im Warnings

Apparently, there are five levels of multi-level warnings. But just out of curiosity, when are level 4im warnings usually used? It seems fairly harsh for new users to only receive only one warning for vandalism. Dbacvdeifdgthoimjskflan (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This, because their username makes it clear they want to cause a scene. Maybe this as well. F (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

uw-religion?

I recently created a single-issue notice/warning/welcome template for my own use at User:Noian/uw-religion, does anything think this deserves to be in mainspace? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Also don't think it deserves to be in template space. Gurch (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Uw-vandalism3 and Uw-vandalism4: change "will" to "may"?

They state that the vandals "will" be blocked from editing, but since the admins very rarely block IPs, even after repeated libel of BLPs, can we change it to "may"? I end up having to use only up to level2, because using level3 makes me a liar when the admins refuse block the vandals. Some admins then also refuse to block because the IPs haven't received level3 and level4 warnings yet. Catch-22. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-18t13:00z

I'll go for the status quo. "Will" means, hey, buddy, this is serious. Admins block IPs a lot more than you seem to think. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Much like Blanchardb, I agree that "will" conveys the gravity of the situation a lot more precisely than "may." — Kralizec! (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If the templates have been used correctly then it's very rare for an admin not to block, though with an IP we tend to do shorter blocks to avoid collateral blocks for others on the same IP. ^Khukri 16:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The templates saying "will" can't be used correctly, because the libelers aren't always blocked, and they're not always blocked because the "will"s wasn't already used. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-27t20:21z

This kind of reasoning makes my head hurt. Actually so does your signature, what happened there? Gurch (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC 3339. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-29t11:20z

Can't find anything in that RFC about burying a link to your talk page in a timestamp, making said timestamp completely unparseable... Gurch (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to have a more obvious talk page link now. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-06t14:53z

Uw-c&pmove

The template {{Uw-c&pmove}} may be misleading in some cases because editors do not always copy the text of the old article and paste it unchanged into the new article; sometimes they do a "copy, revise, and paste" move, and then redirect the old title to their new article. This is just as bad in terms of splitting edit histories, but the template message doesn't cover it and the editor who receives the message may think, "oh, what an idiot, can't they see I didn't just copy and paste it!" and ignore the important part about splitting the edit history. Any suggestions for revising the template or adding a parameter to handle this case would be welcome. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Uw-spamublock

I've rewritten {{Uw-spamublock}} in the view of WP:AN#Category:Requests for unblock. Thoughts?  Sandstein  22:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, I've removed the request to add a block of proposed text, because I think that would make requests harder to answer and I resolve most cases completely without ever asking to see a proposed edit. It's one thing as a request from a commenting unblock reviewer, it's another in the block template. Second, I think the template takes a bit of a harder line than is really correct. Sure, it would simplify things to never allow people back on WP if they don't agree to drop all COI activity... but then, WP:COI does not go so far as to say that COI is absolutely forbidden, only that there is a need to tread cautiously. Can we soften it? Or should we try it this way and see how it works out? Mangojuice^talk 05:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the block of text removal. My aim was to simplify unblock processing in order to avoid time-consuming discussions. This is a message for accounts of the type "SuperCorpJoe" who do nothing but promote "SuperCorp" and get blocked for it. It seems appropriate to me to expect a clear commitment not to make any COI edits from them. I understand that WP:COI stops short of prohibiting COI edits so as not to prevent otherwise useful editors from making them, in a transparent manner, once in a while. That's not the situation we encounter at this juncture.  Sandstein  09:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still not what COI says but maybe it'll help streamline the process. But maybe we should discuss at WT:COI, because you're right: there is a bit of a difference when it comes to COI-only accounts. Mangojuice^talk 13:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just wondering -- anyway to make it so that the "Why can't I edit Wikipedia?" is spaced correctly? Nja²⁴⁷ 10:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean so that the header drops below the stop sign? If so, adding a <br> seems to do it. I previewed it and it looked OK, but I didn't want to save it in case their is a easier way to accomplish the same thing. TNXMan 11:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)