Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 8: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m heading |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{| class="messagebox"
|-
| [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]
| This is an '''[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|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 <span class="plainlinks">[{{{1|{{FULLURL:{{TALKSPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}}} current talk page]</span>.<!-- Template:Talkarchive -->
|}__NOEDITSECTION__
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span>[[../Archive 7|← Archive 7]]</span> |<!--
--><span> '''Archive 8''' </span><!--
-->| <span>[[../Archive 9|Archive 9 →]]</span>
</div>
== Template idea/request ==
Line 15 ⟶ 24:
Appears as:
{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|20px]] }}}Thank you for your contributions to [[WP:Welcome|Wikipedia]]! We appreciate all editors coming to help improve the encyclopedia. However, it appears that one of your edits recently removed an existing [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]]{{#if:{{{1|}}}| from [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Please do not remove redirects, because it splits the article's [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is needed for attribution, and creates two variants of the same article. Instead, please discuss your concerns about the redirect on the main article's talk page, and propose possible solutions. Redirects created from [[Help:Moving a page|page moves]] should remain in place, unless [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] is reached by the community to change them. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <sup>[[user:ArielGold|<
Thoughts? (Feel free to edit the template as needed if I've made a mistake with scripting.) <sup>[[user:ArielGold|<
:Well, it's nicely written. I haven't personally run into this situation much myself, so I can't speak to the need for a template message.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Line 27 ⟶ 36:
== {{tl|uw-subst}} ==
I left this template for someone the other day and they came back to me for an explanation. I think it could use some clarification. -- [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]] [[User talk:Flyguy649|<sup>talk
== Transclusion ==
Line 83 ⟶ 92:
== Why? ==
What was the point in redirecting {{tl|bv}} to {{tl|uw-vandalism3}}? They are completely different messages. Bad form IMO. [[User:KnowledgeOfSelf|<
:Most if not all of the templates have been restored. [[User:KnowledgeOfSelf|<
== Uw-npov1 ==
The level 1 template for NPOV violations seems a tad accusatory when you include an article name as the first parameter (the sentence added when you specify a first parameter reads, "It appears you have not followed this policy at ''article name''."). To avoid [[WP:BITE|biting the newbies]], I'd like to modify the sentence to carry a bit more explanation of the problem and focus less on the formalities of policy (a tone more appropriate for level 2). I'm thinking something like, "A contribution you made to ''article name'' appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem." Anyway, I wanted to bring this up here first since the UW template pages note that the texts have been carefully crafted, and I didn't want to change anything without some indication of consensus first. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<
:Silence taken as consent. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<
== <nowiki>{{uw-disambig1}}</nowiki> ==
Line 121 ⟶ 130:
:: Leuko, are you kidding me? All I made was my first edit on the AUA page, and I got this intimidating "level 3" warning on my Talk page. It basically said, "you ''will'' be blocked..." My second option was to do a consensus. But guess what? I left a message on AUA Talk page that was left unanswered for 24 hours. It was apparent you weren't ready for any kind of consensus for whatever reasons, so I had to resort to my choices of reporting you to the admin forum. Basically, if I changed the page, I would be threatened with banning. If I post on the Talk page, my request goes unanswered. If you were in my place, what would have you done? By the way, we did a consensus and the results were as expected - the majority was against you. If one not only makes unsound judgments, but also threatens people with banning - that's a very dangerous combination. [[User:DrGladwin|DrGladwin]] 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::You don't need to be an admin to warn someone a block is coming, you just need to be correct about it a reasonable amount of time. Admins have special powers, not special authority. Normal editors have just as much responsibility to enforce policy. If a person has a history of leaving incorrect warnings, leave a warning on their talk page about it. ([[User:Until(1 == 2)|(<
::::1 == 2, this is the ''current'' situation, but as you read in my above first post I suggest that these warnings should not be available for regular editors to issue. Specifically, they insinuate that the warning editor (Leuko in the above situation) actually '''has the ability''' to ban someone. Imagine our surprise when we found this not to be the case at all. Imagine how we felt when we were given this warning which was over the top by someone who has no ability to carry it out. '''I suggest that level 3 and above warnings not be available for non-admin editors to issue'''. Thank you. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 127 ⟶ 136:
::::::The problem with the level 3 warning is that non-admin may be reluctant to use it. They may think that they can't block others so the threat is a potentially idle threat. It's true that it can be reported to AIV. However, the trouble with that is the admin's judgement can be different (either too stern and blocks even if the warning is falsely given or too lax and ignores warnings). In practice, it's not a great problem. However, it might be better to reword template level 3 to say "...steps will be taken to block you" rather than "you will be blocked". [[User:Archtransit|Archtransit]] 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::If the warned individual fails to heed the warning, then the warning editor just heads over to [[WP:AIV]], reports the individual, and the next administrator to stop by will briefly review the situation and (if everything's kosher) block the user. A non-admin may not have the ability to place the block, but they have the ability to report the situation to those who do, and that's just as good. It seems to me that your issue is different from what you're suggesting as a solution, namely that you feel that some folks abuse the higher-level warnings when a lower-level warning will do. Conflating the two issues only makes it harder to resolve either one. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<
:::(ec)Your suggestion is just not how things work here. Admins are not referee's and regular editors are just as allowed to enforce policy as anyone else. There are places they can go to have the block enforced. I think it should stay that way, and I think it is very much likely to stay that way. I read your comment in full. Users who abuse the warnings can be dealt with. ([[User:Until(1 == 2)|(<
:::::Editors who purposefully use (incorrect) warnings to intimidate other users, or who never learn how to use them with any accuracy may be subjected to [[WP:CSN|community sanctions]] banning them from using warnings. However, with only 1,347 admins, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of vandals disallowing regular users from issuing level 3 and 4 warnings is simply not an option. Keep in mind that your situation is the exception, not the rule. Users are discouraged from skipping 2 or more warnings except in extreme circumstances. '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<
::::::(e/c)So you're suggesting because some one does not have the technical ability to enforce policy besides giving warnings, they should not even be able to tell blatant vandals what the result of their continued actions will be? Policy says: You vandalize, you get blocked. Why can non-admins not say what policy is? Wikipedia only has ~1300 admins, not all are active and many do not do vandalism patrol. I don't even know where to start to tell all of the problems this could cause. <
:::::::Mr Z, not sure if you read all what I wrote. I clearly wrote that in this case the editor who issued the warning was doing so entirely baselessly. He was unhappy with our edits (which were in no way vandalism) but immediately issued a level 3 vandalism warning. Naturally, this is frustrating and brings up a whole host of questions and issues which I present above. Again- the warning was used in an attempt to get myself and another editor to not edit an article, '''not''' because there was actual vandalism occurring. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::No editor, admin or not is supposed to give incorrect warnings. But people make mistakes and we [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], we're all human, nobody is perfect. Forbidding non-admins from issuing level 3 or 4 warnings is not going to help anything, it'll just make a ton of other problems a lot worse. I'm not saying you are a blatant vandal, but your suggestion would not allow warnings to be given to even the most blatant vandals, if the warning editor is not an admin. <
::::::::Like I said before, if individual users abuse the warnings, then they can be dealt with individually. However, what all of us are trying to say is that banning non-admins from issuing warnings entirely is impractical. '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<
:Unless a user is leaving a warning that says "I personally will block you", this is a misperception on the part of the warned party. Non-issue. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">☯</span>]] //</span> 06:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 142 ⟶ 151:
::It recently fooled two of us who are casual editors here. Clearly, '''not''' a non-issue. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::You've taken it to ANI, so they will deal with the editor individually if need be. Do you understand why banning regular users from issuing warnings is an impractical idea? '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<
::::I agree with Dachannien, The Hybrid and Mr. Z-man. THis reads more like two newer editors feel bullied, and instead of asking us to stop one bully, they want us to deputize some editors to have special powers (access to templates) when we could continue as we are now at wikipedia, allowing all to fix the prject, and encouraging editors to read up on major policies like vandalism. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] 06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Never for a moment do I suggest that there should be no method for editors to issue warnings, but in my opinion they must be different from those that admins can issue. There should be a softer or different tone, different wording, etc. Otherwise it can (and has) been exploited by people who are looking for just another tool to solidify their edits and scare other editors away. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::If someone goes around replacing page text with pictures of genitalia, we should not be replying to that with soft toned warnings. Especially if tey do it multiple times after receiving those soft toned warnings. The warning templates are designed to escalate. "''it can (and has) been exploited by people who are looking for just another tool to solidify their edits and scare other editors away.''" - Just because 0.1% of the time the warnings are misused (if that) is not a reason to abandon the current system. Deal with the user, don't try to change the whole system. If after working fine for years your car doesn't start, do you go out immediately and buy a new car? No, you deal with the specific problem. <
::::::::::Ok, I can accept that. I hope that this specific problem is dealt with very quickly. Thank you. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 07:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 169 ⟶ 178:
The idea is to catch valid problems with should be reported on the talk page. Please let me know what you think (if there are any problems, feel free to revert and discuss here). --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:I didn't really like it at first, but it's growing on me. It does offer more guidance, which is not a bad idea for a level one template. I would, however, suggest switching the order of the two bullet points.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:I have to say, as someone who uses this template rather a lot, I'm not a fan of the bullet point style. Whilst I would not be against a rewording, I would suggest that this is made into the same format as the rest of the user warnings. It currently looks rather messy and out of place when on talk pages (in my opinion at least). [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><
::No!!! I appreciate the intent and the effect in its own little world, but looking at the bigger picture it makes it impossible to turn an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.197.77.194&oldid=162529976 unorganized mess] of a talk page into [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.197.77.194&oldid=163618764 something useable] to those who are trying to determine a user's history at a glance. Please find a better way! --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3<sup>rd</sup>]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<
Based on the concerns above, I have changed it back to a single paragraph warning, while preserving most of h2g2bob's language. Any other concerns or comments?--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks! ♥ It's a nice improvement from before ''h2g2bob'' started on it, and it should work well in this form. --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3<sup>rd</sup>]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<
:: I agree with Kubigula's edit - nicely done :) --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
==
Can this be added to the icon template call? ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 12:27 [[15 October]] [[2007]] (GMT).
== Civility ==
Are there generally civility warning templates? I couldn't put my finger on them. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] 03:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:I don't believe there is a general civility template or series. The AGF series ({{tl|uw-agf1}} etc) is probably the closest thing.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 185 ⟶ 196:
What if the test didn't work? [[User:Josh the Nerd|Josh]] 03:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:Then it wouldn't be a test, it wouldn't have worked / been saved and we wouldn't have seen it, so no need to issue a comment on it. It's for first time editors, and where you see the ubiquitous ''asdasdjsdfhfhhfhkasklls'' which generally indicates someone is seeing if what they type appears in the article once saved. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::If an anonymous user makes one of those sorts of edits and then immediately deletes their changes, I will often leave them a {{tl|uw-selfrevert}} message. However, as always [[YMMV]]. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 16:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:: What if someone added the following "HTML code" to an article: <
:::Yes, even though it's an assanine question, the temnplate is for the fact that they are doing '''editing tests''' to find out how wikipedia works in article space, not on whether the syntax of their test was correct or not. Also these templates are used for common occuring situations and do not cover every single perceivable possibility that could occur and in no way stop you from leaving a personal message, which would be the preferable option. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== Anon Vandal ==
Line 223 ⟶ 234:
::::Talk softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy is the art of saying, "nice doggy" while searching for a rock to throw. And so on. You can still sound nice while not feeling it. Think of [[Dolores Umbridge]], smiling and sweetly saying, "Welcome to Wikipedia..." with her ice-cold heart. My point being, it doesn't hurt to keep first contact, especially, soft. As a "fer example", yesterday I used a <nowiki>{{uw-vand1}}</nowiki> on someone who had made 5 serial unconstructive edits, and today I received this reply:
:::::''Oops - I was wondering how things worked on wikipedia. I did not intend for it to be a bad thing. I meant to undo it but I forgot. I'm sorry and I will not do it again. Sorry to bother you'''
:::: A nice resonse, so I'm glad I didn't [[WP:BITE|bite the newcomer]]. For those who ''really'' deserve it, you can start with uw-vand2 or greater. (This from someone who finds himself more and more curmudgeonly from vandal fighting.) --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3<sup>rd</sup>]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<
:::<i>"It's quite possible they didn't realize the software would really allow them to replace the article with the word fuck [repeated 200 times]."</i> LOL, I suppose you're right, people can be [[Hanlon's razor|that dumb]]. I personally don't understand why someone would even ''try'' that in good faith, instead of "Will this work?" or something inoffensive. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]] 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 245 ⟶ 256:
:::::We do not say ''you'' are a vandal, we say your edit could be seen / were vandalism, and I think if you proposed this change at either [[WP:UTM]] or [[WP:UW]], then I think you'd find the answer would be quickly no. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Khukri|Khukri]] ([[User talk:Khukri|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khukri|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::::If the templates get changed in this fashion, let me know. I'll just fork the ones that mention "vandalism" so that I and others can continue using them. Why we shouldn't call a spade a spade - and call vandalism vandalism - is beyond me. --[[User:Dachannien|'''<
:::As with Hydra, to take offence with a word who's derivation is 2000 years old is taking it to the extreme, and to use terms like ethnic slur is taking political correctness sensibilities just a tad to far. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::: (edit conflict) Please, folks, don't fall in the trap of discussing if this is or isn't an issue of political correctness. As I wrote above, that's irrelevant in this case. Instead, we should simply be concise and to the point. "Your edit can be seen as <s><name calling></s>" is obviously less concise than "Your edit was not helpful". Using something that only "could be seen as" just adds an unnecessary level of distraction and complexity. Let's just simply say how we see it. — [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 07:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 255 ⟶ 266:
::::: You're only feeding the trolls! You're asking for evidence, but do you have evidence for your claim that calling people names works better? Experience with trolls points to the opposite. For some time I used "your edit was disruptive", but I felt that that only encourages those whose goal is to disrupt Wikipedia. — [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 07:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::As I said above Sebastian, you are not calling them names, you are not saying you are a ''vandal'' you are saying what you did was vandalism, the target of the noun is not the person, but their contributions. I think we have assumed pretty good faith with the lvl1 warnings, but once you get to lvl4 lets not beat around the bush here, what they are doing is vandalism. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::::: I don't think your distinction holds water: It's only a superficial grammatical difference if you say somebody did X or call them an X-doer. But mine probably doesn't hold water, either. "Vandalism/vandal" is closer to a well defined term than to a slur, so I'm striking the "name calling" part. I don't see why you write "once you get to lvl4": {{tl|uw-vand2}} already talks of vandalism. — [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 08:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 290 ⟶ 301:
--[[User:Xiahou|Xiahou]] 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Please read [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings#Layout_Guidelines|here]] for details. Regards [[User:Khukri|'''Khukri''']] <sup>([[User_talk:Khukri|'''<
== Organizing this page ==
Could we break this page down a little more so that the templates get their own subsections for each violation type, similar to what has been done for blocks at the bottom of the page? For instance, create subsections for: Vandalism, Blanking, Testing, User pages, Informational error, Manual of style, Assume good faith, No personal attacks, Defamatory content, Joking, Biographical accuracy, Neutral point of view, Ownership of articles (typo in level two template), Spam links, Copright infringement, Creating articles, 3RR, Images, Censorship, Unsourced content, and Moving articles. It's hard to grab the right template when in a hurry to let an editor know that their current action is not 100% acceptable according to Wiki standards. <b>[[User:Zuejay|<i
:You know, that's a good idea. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to do it unles everyone agrees. Any other Yay's OR Nay's? -- [[User:Nerketur|Nerketur]] 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
:Bring it up on [[WT:UTM]] you'll get more opinion there, but I don't see why not. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::Thanks to ''someone'' for following up on this request. It is so much easier to use. I lost track of this over the last couple weeks while on wikibreak. Thanks for following thru/up. There are templates here I didn't know we had! <b>[[User:Zuejay|<i
== Self revert template ==
Line 305 ⟶ 316:
Could we get a template for self revert tests? [[User:WilliamKF|WilliamKF]] 04:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
: There already is, {{tltt|uw-selfrevert|thanks for reverting your own tests}}. It's a fairly busy page but ''almost'' everything we have is listed here [[WP:UTM]]. Regards, <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::Great, thanks, I added this to the project page. [[User:WilliamKF|WilliamKF]] 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I reverted your change as you added it to the multi-level warnings page, for warnings that have incremental levels. It needs to be added to the [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Single_level_details|single level]] warnings. As you look through it you'll see that the warnings aren't harmonised and do not have the same look and ''tidyness'' that the multi level warnings do. I'm back from wikibreak tomorrow and next week I intend to attack the second part of [[WP:UW]] harmonisation program. If you look [[WP:UW/Overview|here]] you'll see most of the templates that weren't covered by the original program and the recommended actions. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::And Khukri has put it on the single level page too already. Thanks. [[User:WilliamKF|WilliamKF]] 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 320 ⟶ 331:
I've experienced an edit in a biography which the editor attacked the person in the biography not an editor, I only found here the <nowiki>{{subst:uw-npa1|Article}} template so I used the </nowiki><nowiki>{{subst:uw-biog1|Article}}</nowiki> instead. Why isn't there such a template for attacking a person in his own biography ???
:Depends on what is being written, but sound like the {{tl|uw-defam1}} series could be used here. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== Moving the block templates was a bad idea ==
Line 437 ⟶ 448:
== Infobox colors ==
Do we have any warning templates for vandals who change infobox colors? It seems to be a new fad that I've been seeing. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<
:[[WP:MOS]] includes a section on infoboxes. If the edits are against the guidelines of the MOS, use the MOS series of warnings. If they're not counter to MOS, I think it might be difficult to characterize the changes as vandalism as opposed to a legitimate difference of opinion over appearance of the infobox (we have to assume good faith, even if the edits test the limits of that assumption). If it's continuing, you can run the count on 3RR. [[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] 01:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Line 501 ⟶ 512:
== Question ==
Is there a warning message for users (vandal IP addresses and accounts) who blank their user talk pages (supposedly already full of warning messages)? <span style="font-family:copperplate gothic light">[[User:The Chronic|<
:See [[WP:UW/FAQ#How about creating a user warning template...]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]] 05:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
::While that standard may be reasonable for user account talk pages, since they "own" their user talk page, is it also reasonable for IP address user talk pages? Technically the person using that IP address doesn't own it in the same way that they could own an account, so might that kind of template be acceptable if only used on IP addresses' user talk pages? Keep in mind that blanking an IP addresses' user talk page could remove other information from the page that might be important to other users of that IP address or other Wikipedia users. -- [[User:HiEv|<span style="color:#E05858;font-weight:bold;">Hi</span>]][[User talk:HiEv|<span style="color:#C06060;font-weight:bold;">Ev</span>]] 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Line 547 ⟶ 558:
== Guidance on signatures ==
This would be a good place to point out to novices (like me!) that you should use a signature when warning a user. (At least, I believe that's what I'm supposed to do, from reading other pages.) If I were more certain of that, I'd even be bold and edit the article myself. Sadly, no. [[User:JayLevitt|JayLevitt]] 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
: I originally posted the above on 10/20, but it received no feedback, and was swept into the archives by MishaBot. Is it inappropriate for me to be reposting it? If so, sorry. If there's a better place to post it, please let me know. And if there's a way to suggest that bots attempt to distinguish between new sections that have received answers and subsequently died off, vs. old sections that are still awaiting someone's attention, please consider this a suggestion for making that distinction... -- [[User:JayLevitt|JayLevitt]] ([[User talk:JayLevitt|talk]]) 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Line 555 ⟶ 566:
== Wording of {{tl|uw-tilde}} ==
Would it not be clearer for new editors, particularly in terms of highlighting its relevance to anons, if "name" was replaced with "user name or IP address"? '''''[[User talk:Adrian M. H.|<
:<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fff; padding: 6px; margin-right: .5em;">[[Image:☑.svg|20px]] [[Template:Resolved|Resolved]]</span>{{#if: <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== <nowiki>{{uw-nor1}} through {{uw-nor4}}</nowiki> ==
Line 574 ⟶ 585:
== [[:Template:Uw-lblock]] ==
I suggest that there should be a template for indefinitely blocked users for making legal threats. This template ([[Template:Uw-lblock]]) is for temporary blocked users and what if someone is indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats? I believe that there should also be a legal threat block template for indefinitely blocked users as well. [[User:NHRHS2010|<
: This came up earlier today. Shouldn't this template default to "indefinitely," and have "temporarily" as the option? (In the meantime: Use the "indef=yes" parameter so the template will indicate an indefinite block.) -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::Policy on legal threats is to block indefinitely, and then lift the block only when the user rescinds the legal threat. Could somebody with parser skillz implement Gyrofrog's suggestion? ··[[ user: coelacan |coe<span style=" font-variant: small-caps" >l</span>a]][[ user talk: coelacan |can]] 21:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Done. Where do I sign the work order? ;-) The new parameter to make it temporary is "temp=yes". My long-term project will be to work on the documentation for block templates. For example, the template documentation doesn't say "sig=<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" signs templates. [[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
::::The other blocks I think are sig=y. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
:::::Hmm, that may very well be the case. Sig=<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> always worked for me, but I wonder if sig="anything" would put the signature there. Hah, this is why we need clear documentation. I'm going to sandbox this to check it out for myself and report back. Thanks for the heads-up! [[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 08:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Line 589 ⟶ 600:
== To pass on the baton. ==
As most of you are aware I've not been looking after the user warnings for a couple of months now. So it's time to pass the baton on, and I will be removing them from my watch list. I've created a page [[User:Khukri/Templates|here]] which you/someone can use to copy the full set of uw- warnings into your raw watchlist. Though I won't be keeping an eye on the warnings, I will still be here and at WP:UW (which I think someone should merge here now). All the best <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
:Copied! Thanks for all of your hard work on this project. It is greatly appreciated! --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Line 605 ⟶ 616:
::: None of those really fitted what i wanted to say. It was in english and i believe the edits were a genuine attempt to improve an article but i think they had just made an unnoticed mistake or typo that left the sentence hard to make sense of. What i wanted was to put something on the talk page that says something like ''maybe you should reassess what you wrote again as it doesn't appear to make sense in it's current form'' giving them the opportunity to address the issue rather than just have what could be worthwhile info removed. --[[User:Neon white|Neon white]] ([[User talk:Neon white|talk]]) 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You want {{t1|SpellCheck}}, it runs the gamut on your concerns. --[[User:12 Noon|12 N<
:: Thank you, that does the trick. --[[User:Neon white|Neon white]] ([[User talk:Neon white|talk]]) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Line 646 ⟶ 657:
::While I understand this concern, I cannot say that I share it. The level three warnings do not say that ''I'' am going to block you; they merely state that if you continue to vandalize, you will be blocked (by someone). Likewise, speaking as editors "inside" the warning process, we who report level four violations may not be the admins levying the blocks, but we are the people initiating the investigation that leads to a block via ''our'' reports to [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:ANI]], etc. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 05:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:::You may also want to see a similar discussion to the wording of level three warnings [[Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Archive_8#Non-admins_issuing_warnings|here]]. --[[User:Hdt83|<
== Substitution failures ==
Line 657 ⟶ 668:
:{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Article|, such as the one you made to [[:Article]],}} did not appear to be constructive and has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:And this is some extra text for the subst if.|And this is some extra text for the subst if.|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 -->
:Looks OK to me, can you explain exactly what you were doing or give an example please. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== Merge Template:Minor into Template:Uw-minor? ==
Line 679 ⟶ 690:
(dedenting) And if you must use a template, try {{tls|uw-wrongsummary}}. --[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] ([[User talk:Damian Yerrick|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Damian Yerrick|stalk]]) 14:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:We should take the opportunity with this template to warn deleters against following up with bogus edit summaries. Phrasing in that first sentence would be better as "... without providing a meaningful explanation of the reason for the removal in the edit summary." {{tls|uw-wrongsummary}} is useful, but it lacks escalating levels of warning. A progressive 1-2-3-4-im warning system supports effective countervandalism. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] ([[User talk:Dl2000|talk]]) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
::If "deleters" and other malicious editors do make up false edit summaries, it would probably be better to simply use the generic warnings for vandalism or blanking or whatever they hid under the false edit summary. We don't need a progressive warning system for every single warning we have. --[[User:Hdt83|<
== uw-joke[1-2] ==
Line 698 ⟶ 709:
Does anyone want to create a template whereby it can be placed on anonymous IP's talk-pages informing them about the benefits of creating an account? This is assuming, of course, that such anonymous editors are making regular contributions to certain article(s) and it is obvious that they are serious-ish editors. So it may be helpful to let them know about the benefits of creating an account and the template can direct them to the appropriate WP page that deals with it. Thanks, [[User:Ekantik|Ekantik]] <sup>[[User talk:Ekantik|talk]]</sup> 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
:Like {{tl|welcome-anon}} ... ? --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
::There are several welcome template that fit the purpose: See [[:Template:Welc-anon]], [[:Template:AnonymousWelcome]], and [[:Template:Welcome-anon-vandal]]. Hope that helps. --[[User:Hdt83|<
:::Thank you both very much. [[User:Ekantik|Ekantik]] <sup>[[User talk:Ekantik|talk]]</sup> 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
== {{tl|uw-balkans}} ==
guys, this is something I forgot to bring here the other week but just remembered, so better late than never. [[User|Sandstein]] added the above warning to the main page after [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia]], this was done with good intention though I believe this warning should have greater concensus before going live (my comments and reasoning are in the blocks and logs section of the ArbReq). Thoughts please? <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
:I say that placing such a template on the UTM page is a bad idea. The tone of the message is very biting to me and unknowing newbies may be extremely offended by this message. Such a warning on the UTM page may also encourage users who are in a dispute relating to the subject to place these templates on users' talk pages without thought or to get back at them. I also concur with your point on this template leading to things like <nowiki>{{uw-ireland}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{uw-israel-palestine}}</nowiki> etc.. Not every editor involved in editing the related Balans pages needs this rude message on their talk page and those that do should have a more personal message rather than a template. So to sum up my point, the template is over-excessive and not needed. --[[User:Hdt83|<
:I think the whole idea of this preemptive warning is contrary to [[WP:BITE]], [[WP:AGF]], and [[WP:CIVIL]]. More in line with policy, IMO, would be to give the warning to editors who are beginning to engage in behaviors that would result in these sanctions. Yes, this means they might get away with slightly more disruption, but the alternative is worse. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 02:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:It's definitely not suited for UTM. And personally I think templating is a very bad idea here. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
== uw-notcensored3 ==
Line 713 ⟶ 724:
Someone has gone an [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 15#Template:Uw-notcensored3|nominated uw-notcensored3 and uw-notcensored4 for deletion without discussion]]. The point regarding softening the wording is valid; I suggest changing {{tl|uw-notcensored3}} to <blockquote>{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] }}}Please stop. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored|not censored]]. If you continue to make changes which have the effect of censoring an article{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, such as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-notcensored3 --></blockquote> and changing {{tl|uw-notcensored4}} to redirect to {{tl|uw-delete4}} rather than {{tl|uw-vandalism4}}. Any thoughts? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:Have replied on the TfD, cheers for bring this to our attention. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== [[Template:uw-test2]] ==
Line 719 ⟶ 730:
This template currently states "Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them". Should we ''really'' be discouraging second-time low-level offenders (i.e. test2 rather than vand2) from attempting to fix articles, like this wording suggests? Surely attempting to fix an article is not even covered by what we would normally consider as "test edits"? And if I'm merely misunderstanding the wording, and it's actually saying they should not be attempting to fix ''their own test edits'' (in which case it could be made clearer perhaps), then why should we be discouraging users reverting themselves?<br />
I feel this template perhaps needs a bit of rewording. --[[User:Dreaded Walrus|Dreaded Walrus]] <sup> [[User talk:Dreaded Walrus|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Dreaded Walrus|c]]</sup> 05:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:The wording of the template was meant that the vandals should not make test edits even if they are going to remove the test edits they made afterwards. The wording may be slightly confusing and if someone comes up with a better way to word this sentence them I'm all for it. --[[User:Hdt83|<
== Blog template ==
Line 725 ⟶ 736:
Is there a template to use or noticeboard to report a user using their userpage as a sport's blog? [[User:Mbisanz|Mbisanz]] ([[User talk:Mbisanz|talk]]) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:There are only templates for the more common problems, and even then they aren't a substitute for a good ol' personal message. All the templates are listed on the project page. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== {{tl|Uw-tblock}} ==
I am considering bringing this template to TfD to be honest. I don't think it is a good idea to template people to tell them that it is bad to make death threats. What do you think? -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
:I didn't think death and legal (until it's withdrawn) threats were temporary blocks, but yea I'd go along with that Lucas <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::I was so stunned by the by the big bold '''making death threats''' that I didn't see that! :D. Note that the legal threats one makes more sense, since [[WP:NLT]] is policy. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
:Note there is also {{tl|Deaththreatblock}} for indef-blocks. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
::Should I bring one to tfd I'll bring the other then. Note that this one is only transcluded on 3 pages. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
:::I've been meaning to get round to TfDing it since I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Deaththreatblock&oldid=127091197 this version]. The obvious solution with the uw-tblock template is to reword it so that it refers to ''inappropriate'' threats, or similar. There are many types of threat which will earn a block, some of them are temporary, and vandalism does not always seem to be an apt description. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I think the templates would suffice if they simply said "making threats" rather than "making death threats". Same with the legal threat {{t1|Uw-lblock}} template. If we say "death" and "legal" threats, that is a) too much information; and b) putting specific ideas in other unscrupulous user's heads.--'''[[User:12 Noon|<
:::::Very good idea. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::::How does "Threatening to take real world actions" sound, if you want a template? I dunno to be honest, [[WP:DENY]] pops in my mind when I imagine a situation where I would use such a template (Personally I think the NLT one should be kept though, for it is a convenient way to let the user know exactly why they are blocked). -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
== user page ==
Line 747 ⟶ 758:
== Addition ==
perhaps on the end of these templates you could add <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. It's not that big of a deal, but it would make life just a bit easier [[User:Ctjf83|'''<
: does anyone have a problem if i just do this? [[User:Ctjf83|'''<
::The uw templates did have an auto signature feature when they were first introduced. I know that there were objections and the feature was disabled. This was before my time on the WikiProject, but I do recall there was some controversy about it. One issue would be that some of the scripts do add a sig, so it would add double sigs if the template included one too.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
:::oh, so the scripts from like twinkle copy off these? I thought they were just for copy and pasting [[User:Ctjf83|'''<
::I would also have to say leave out auto-sigs. It's not that hard to remember to sign the template like you sign any other comment, and changing that would break all existing scripts that use the uw warnings and confuse all the people who are used to the current setup. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 13:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
:::This was discussed at the beginning of the project and the answer was a resounding no, mainly because it's not standard throughout Wikipedia, which would lead to editors not remembering whish templates had to be signed and which didn't. The block templates have sig=(any char) only because they use div's. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== Cluttering links to disambiguation pages. ==
Can we get this template (and others like it) to avoid cluttering the "What links here" reports from disambiguation pages by ''not'' linking to the article if it is a disambig. That will make it easier for those of us who do a lot of disambig work to see what on the page is a link that really needs to be fixed. The http link to the edit itself should suffice. If not, can we force it to pipe links to "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation)" where "Foo" is a disambiguation page? Cheers! [[User:BD2412|<
:I really really don't think there's a way to do that automatically, sorry. - [[User:I do not exist|<span style="color:teal">∅</span>]] ([[User talk:I do not exist|<span style="color: gold; font-weight: bold;">∅</span>]]), 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
:Which template in particular (the talk pages for most uw series templates redirect here)? Anyway, there is no way to detect if any particular page is a disambiguation page for "forcing" piping as you request, it would be up to the person leaving the warning to handle that in some manner. And if the problem edit in question was to the disambiguation page, you're just out of luck. Personally, I would just ignore all User talk namespace pages (and talk namespaces in general) when checking that sort of thing per [[WP:TALK#Others' comments]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 03:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Line 778 ⟶ 789:
Why does the death threat block message {{tl|uw-tblock}} say that it's a temporary block, while the legal threat block message {{tl|uw-lblock}} say it's indefinite? If you ask me, making a death threat is far more objectionable than making a legal threat, though both are uncalled for. Why would anyone who made death threats be allowed to return? - [[User:Chardish|Chardish]] ([[User talk:Chardish|talk]]) 08:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:A better question is why we even have that template. Death threats come up so infrequently, in the time it would take to look it up and copy and paste it you could just write out a quick block message. <
== Question about which template ==
What template should be used if a user adds in a prediction for future events? Like if someone adds "The 2008 World Series will be the Mets against the Red Sox"? This is mainly a problem on wrestling articles, where IPs will add in rumored matches or matches they want to see (or just making shit up for no reason). I normally give the Unreference warning, but should that still be given when you know the info is BS and won't have a source? '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">[[User:TJ Spyke|<
:Perhaps {{tl|Uw-hoax}} is the closest thing? [[User:Dreaded Walrus|Dreaded Walrus]] <sup> [[User talk:Dreaded Walrus|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Dreaded Walrus|c]]</sup> 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
== Recently created uw templates ==
Line 791 ⟶ 802:
Any thoughts, anyone? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 17:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:For {{tl|uw-badcsd}}, the template should be moved to template namespace. {{tl|uw-balkans}} should go through TFD and be removed as the message that the warning brings dosen't really fit the uw-series. The redirect at {{tl|uw-unsourced4im}} should be removed as I agree that there probably won't be a situation where this will need to be used. These are my thoughts. --[[User:Hdt83|<
::{{tl|uw-badcsd}} resembles {{tl|sdd2}} - should merge content from sdd2 to make the all-new uw-badcsd so it can join [[WP:UTM]]. {{tl|uw-balkans}} should go, unless used on occasions, in which case at least rename to something like {{tl|arbcase-balkans}}. As for {{tl|uw-unsourced4im}}, redirects are cheap and leaving it alone would serve as a reminder that the progression of uw-unsourced* already jumped to {{tl|uw-generic4}} (as per [[WP:UTM]]). [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] ([[User talk:Dl2000|talk]]) 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 798 ⟶ 809:
Since it seems that all the talk pages for the various templates point here, is this then the place to discuss possible changes in wording to individual templates? If so, might I ask what the rationale is for that rather than discussing on talk pages for the specific templates? [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(talk)]] 07:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:It was discussed briefly [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Archive_8#Organizing_this_page|here]] and somewhere else I can't recall. The main reason the talk pages of individual templates all redirect here was because the discussions were too scattered and there were many cases of proposed changes and suggestions left unnoticed for months at a time so it was decided to centralize all disscussions about the uw-warnings to this talk page. --[[User:Hdt83|<
::OK, I suppose there's some sense in that. I'll make a suggestion here in a bit. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(talk)]] 07:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
== [[Template:Uw-copyright]] ==
Line 807 ⟶ 818:
In the "Other" section, the link that says "Click here to show messages" is redirecting to the same page as for the single level templates section, which makes me wonder what that link is for. Isn't there a page anywhere showing all the templates from the "Other" section that it could link to? • [[User:Anakin101|Anakin]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/Anakin101|contribs]] • [[User_talk:Anakin101|complaints]])</sup> 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:I noticed that, too. The history tab shows it was redirected in November - I do not know any of the back history on that. Anyway, I think all of those pages are in dire need of being reorganized pretty soon. I have been cleaning up the main page here and there and put these subpages on my to-do list, but I might not get to it for months.--'''[[User:12 Noon|<
== Change to {{tl|uw-vandalism1}} ==
[[User:Angel David]] recently made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-vandalism1&diff=183090867&oldid=183046911 a change] to this template. The difference is that this version would explicitely identify the target's conduct as vandalism. I personally don't like this change as I think it is sufficient for the level one [[WP:AGF]] template to describe the conduct as unconstructive. If there is clear or blatant vandalism, you can always skip to the level two warning or go straight to {{tl|Uw-vandalism4im}} or {{tl|uw-bv}}. I like having a softer version available, and the change also deprecates the level 2 warning. Any other opinions on this?--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
: I agree, that edit is not assuming good faith. Revert it. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 03:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::I would also agree it should not say vandalism. Though I have wondered why need both test1 and vandalism1 when their usages are about the same. <
::::I use test1 if it's an inoffensive edit ("Josh is the coolest") and vandalism1 if it's more offensive ("Australians are a bunch of dumbass fuckheads"), but can still possibly be described as someone experimenting with whether they really can edit this thing.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I reverted it. Damn, I already placed this template a few times with that language and I was not intending to label a newbie as a "vandal". This template is supposed to AGF, so it should have polite language. If you want to label a user as a "vandal", then use level 2 or 3. That is the point of "levels". Regards.--'''[[User:12 Noon|<
:Should such a high use template be fully protected? A change for a few minutes could affect many uses. There really isn't much of a need for it (or similar templates) to be edited. <
:::I think we need both vandalism1 and test1, if nothing else, for consistency. Say a new user goes to the help desk or uses {{tl|helpme}} and asks how do I deal with some edit and is referred to the chart and escalating warnings are explained (or simply makes it here themselves and figures it out). If they are addressing a series of vandalism edits, they should be presented with the commensurate escalating, consistently named series, each starting with vandalism, and not have to figure out that test1 is illogically followed by vandalism2. Course the chart could remain unchanged with a simple redirect from one to the other, but it still would leave an incongruity.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:Seeing that there are even tools that automatically post these templates on user talk pages, they should all be fully and indefinitely protected to ensure that they are not changed without discussion. - [[User:I do not exist|<span style="color:teal">∅</span>]] ([[User talk:I do not exist|<span style="color: gold; font-weight: bold;">∅</span>]]), 11:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::I tend to agree. There are enough admins that keep an eye on these pages to sort any problems that arise, though I'm not entirely sure that ring fencing the warnings in their entirety will sit well with the community. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
:::It seems to me that since these "uw-" templates were all (or most) created by a collaboration and all heavily scrutinized before they were implemented, any changes should be discussed first so that other templates can be updated accordingly to maintain strict consistency. Therefore, they (at least the ones using the "levels" structure) should be fully protected - thereby guaranteeing discussion. Regards.--'''[[User:12 Noon|<
::::Leave it here for a couple more days, then village pump the issue. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
:::::Though in saying leave it here, it would be good if alot of other editors who have had a long involvement in these templates give their thoughts (even if it is just support) as well, as a starting point before going to VP <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::Regardless of the decision on the actual templates, I believe the shortcuts ({{t1|uw-v1}}, etc.) for all of these should be fully protected. Thoughts on the redirects?--'''[[User:12 Noon|<
:::::Agreed. I can't think of any good reason not to protect the redirects. Incidentally, I also agree with fully protecting the most used templates. At a minimum, there should be a notice suggesting discussion before making any substantive changes.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::{{done}} I've fully protected the common uw redirects. In some sense, these were probably at greater risk, as I doubt very many of us had them on our watchlists.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 830 ⟶ 841:
Is there a warning template for users who are misusing Wikipedia procedures? In the example I'm looking at, a user has nominated an obviously valid article for deletion. --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:These templates are only for common garden problems that we see almost every day, and are no substitute for a good ol' personal message. In your case it depends on the reasoning for the AFD, but common problems would be [[WP:POINT]] or [[WP:CENSOR]]. Ask an admin for a speedy keep at [[WP:ANI]], and if the editor persists without good reasoning then blocks would be issued for disruptive editing. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== Link to dispute resolution ==
Line 857 ⟶ 868:
* block
# warning
So, if this is the recommended usage, should it be incorporated into the templates themselves? This would include adding a "#" at the beginning of each template and a header function (which would need coding to handle different situations - can be discussed later). Are there any drawbacks to this? Thoughts?--'''[[User:12 Noon|<
:I would oppose this. Trying to correctly use code to insert headers in certain cases would be more trouble than just typing "===January 2008===" when needed. As for the "#", last I heard that was put on the page because someone thought it might attract more use there, since few were using it before. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 868 ⟶ 879:
::Plus, some of the antivandal bots that autowarn might need to be notified of the change. In all reality, we should probably just update the page to remove the whole numbering idea, because most admins (from what I would guess) and other editors don't pay attention to the sheer number of warnings but more to the the time they were left, the time between them, and what they're for. Morever, because the warnings all have icons on them, they are easy to count visually (without worrying about spacing/parsing/etc). --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with the icon visual. If the layout suggestion is removed from the page (which then it probably should be), the heading suggestion should definitely be left intact. With that being said, since some users remove warnings from their page (as they are free to do so), I would recommend some type of standardized edit summary be suggested on the page so warning can easily be seen in the history. Maybe "WARN #1" or something, in caps. I don't know.... Thoughts?--'''[[User:12 Noon|<
::::I agree with the above in that rearranging the warnings and actually typing in the code for the warnings takes up more time. Also, tools and anti-vandal bots would have to be reprogrammed to follow this format. I say that we should get rid of this layout since the icons should be sufficient enough to tell what level warning the vandal is on. --[[User:Hdt83|<
:::::I thought we already got rid of the "layout" when the #'s were removed from the templates themselves. :-p - [[User:I do not exist|<span style="color:teal">∅</span>]] ([[User talk:I do not exist|<span style="color: gold; font-weight: bold;">∅</span>]]), 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Since the layout was added to this page, I have seen a definite increase in its usage by now-[[WP:UW]] members. As I noted in our previous discussion on this topic (was it in 2006?), while I ''prefer'' to keep the existing layout, I am not firmly attached. Though I feel lukewarm about them, I do not find either of the options discussed at [[WP:UW]] to be particularly objectionable:
Line 879 ⟶ 890:
I took the liberty of creating {{t1|uw-hblock}}, partially because I'm too lazy to keep pasting my block reason into {{t1|uw-block1}} (et al). Plus, I figure it's useful shorthand for other admins as well. Anyway, cheers =) --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:There probably is some discussion of which I am unaware, but why does the reason need to be stated on the template? The reason is usually listed in the blocklog anyway. I would point to [[WP:BEANS]] and [[WP:NOSPADE]] as reasons. I am not an admin so I do not add those templates, but I ''see'' them. If I am a vandal and I see a cohort with a block for doing such-and-such, then maybe I would do that because it is a sure way to get blocked. See a related [[Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Archive_8#.7B.7BUw-tblock.7D.7D|archived thread]] regarding death threats. I guess I am just playing devil's advocate, but it seems to be a legitimate pondering. Regards.--'''[[User:12 Noon|<
::Honestly I've never made a death threat block, so I definitely agree with you on that, but I've made multiple harassment blocks (usually to socks and obvious trolls), so it's less of a block message for the people using socks and trolling, as it is more for the people who might be accidentally affected by the block and for other visitors coming to the talk page to warn the user (despite him/her already being blocked). --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:Just semantics, but how does one attempt to harass another user, either they are or they aren't? <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== Copyright Violations ==
Line 892 ⟶ 903:
== Proposed prohibition on removing templated warnings within one month ==
There is an ongoing [[Wikipedia_talk:Don%27t_restore_removed_comments|discussion]] on making a prohibition on removing templated warnings within one calendar month of being placed on a user's talk page by a logged on registered user as an exception to the general practice of [[WP:DRC]]. [[User:Alice/About_Me|<b><
:Considering this is directly contradicted by both the official [[WP:VAN|vandalism]] policy and the guideline on [[WP:USER|user pages]], I doubt this is going to get off the ground. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 900 ⟶ 911:
::''Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.''"
::Now that text is no longer present on that policy page, it is arguable whether the guideline should be revised as well...)
::In any event, "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community..." and if you visit the discussion, you will see why these changes are being proposed. [[User:Alice/About_Me|<b><
== {{tl|uw-balkans}} ==
Hello, I just wanted to let people know that as discussed above, the template uw-balkans has been nominated for deletion at tfd. Please see [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:uw-balkans]] to discuss. Thanks. --[[User:Hdt83|<
== Proposal for minor change to {{tltts|uw-spam1}} ==
Line 914 ⟶ 925:
:Welcome to Wikipedia. '''Although everyone''' is welcome to contribute constructively to the '''encyclopedia, one '''or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not...
I thought I should ask before making any kind of modification to any of the user warnings. [[User:Thingg|<
*[[Template:Uw-vandalism1]] already uses that language. I would think ''all'' of the level 1 templates should be checked and updated with this language. [[WP:BE BOLD|Go for it]]. --'''[[User:12 Noon|<
== {{tl|Uw-tblock}} nominated for deletion ==
Line 930 ⟶ 941:
There's an "e" missing from "everyone". I don't have access to fix this. --[[User talk:Mr Ralph|Mr R]] 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
:All of the warning templates redirect back to this central talk page, please specify which particular template has the error. Regards. --'''[[User:12 Noon|<
::Ach, hadn't spotted the redirect. 'Tis {{TL|uw-npa1}} --[[User talk:Mr Ralph|Mr R]] 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
== {{tl|uw-vandalism4im}} ==
Line 936 ⟶ 947:
Is there any real need for such a warning? That "only" word is way too strong: IMO, it implies you'll never get another; and it certainly can't (this is still IMO) be used if there already are some warnings on the page! Even "If you see a vandal with a long history" (as said [[User talk:Sandycx|here]], and i assumed it meant a long history of unwarned vandal ''edits''), i'd go for vandal3 instead... Or if that long history was already warned (as seen [[User talk:70.109.217.17|here]]), vandal4 would be just fine. Perhaps a modified v4im, that said "your ''newest'' disruptive edits" or "your ''recent'' disruptive edits"... Other thoughts? -- [[User:Jokes Free4Me|Jokes Free4Me]] ([[User talk:Jokes Free4Me|talk]]) 10:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes there is, as it is the only warning the editor will receive. This warning should not be used on first time vandals or editors with a mixed history of vandalism and good edits, but usually on persistent IP's, with a number of blocks to their names, where the editing trend suggests there is a <u>very</u> high chance the next edit will be vandalism. This is the set of warnings were AGF can only go so far, and we have to face facts that if a school IP only has vandalism edits to it's name, once a block has expired, we tell them again of the consequences and go for a longer block next time if the warning is ignored. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::I agree with Khukri. I have seldom used that warning, but I have used it when an account has had a long string of vandalism that was clearly intentional, but no recent warnings. If they were blocked 3 months ago and have vandalized regularly for the last 2 months without getting a warning, there's no purpose in starting them off with a level 2 warning... --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 942 ⟶ 953:
:::Same here. I use it in cases where {{t1|uw-bv}} doesn't apply, I don't want to block them immediately (e.g., their last block expired a few months back, but they still have an extensive history of vandalism and blocks), or they've done a ''lot'' of vandalism yet haven't been warned yet. My only problem with people using {{t1|uw-vandalism4im}} is that they use it instead of {{t1|uw-vandalism1}} or {{t1|uw-vandalism2}} thinking that when they report to [[WP:AIV]] we'll treat it as a final warning, which is likely not going to be the case except in cases of sockpuppetry or something extraordinary. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Uhh, a question: when should warning4 be used and when should warning4im be used? ~[[User:Ambrosia-|<
::warning4 is used after warning3 has been issued. warning4im is the only warning they receive, which is used for chronic vandals after a block expires. <
== uw-afd1 - minor wording change ==
Line 959 ⟶ 970:
== [[Template:Uw-spam1|Uw-spam1]] links to [[WP:EL]] twice ==
It links to [[Wikipedia:External_links]] twice in the first sentence. Slightly confusing for the layperson I think. I reckon it would read better if the first instance was unlinked. • [[User:Anakin101|<
:Agreed and {{done}}--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
== Proposed change to Uw-coi ==
Line 976 ⟶ 987:
:::Do new users really want a wide array of helpful links, or do they want a few links, carefully selected? Providing links to nearly every useful page (there are 64 links on that template) is overwhelming. - [[User:Chardish|Chardish]] ([[User talk:Chardish|talk]]) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::::(ec)If I feel a user falls into the category Kingturtle is talking about, I always give the user ''both'' {{t1|uw-joke1}} '''and''' {{t1|welcome}}. That seems to do the trick in my mind. I believe that all of these "combo" messages are ineffective and I have never used them; whereas 2 separate messages make the appropriate points. Regards. --'''[[User:12 Noon|<
:::I too use both those links. And that's why it occurred to me to combine them. Just an idea. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] ([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]]) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
== Date page warnings ==
The Wikicalendar articles have guidelines that might not be common knowledge for passing editors. I've created two warnings for use in reference to bad edits to those articles. They tell the user what they did wrong where a regular vandalism warning doesn't tell them much. I propose adding them to the regular template space. They can be viewed at [[user:Mufka/uw-date1]] and [[user:Mufka/uw-date2]]. I also use [[user:Mufka/uw-fd1]] but it's a little less useful for most editors. I like them and I thought others might like them. -- <
:I dunno, the "guidelines" linked on the proposed messages are just for the WikiProject. The "uw-" template messages usually only reference official policy. Project guidelines are not all that enforceable. Might be a tough sell. Regards. --'''[[User:12 Noon|<
== "uw-huggle"? ==
I just ran my [[User:Anomie/uw-templates|new uw-template detection script]], and among other things a number of templates beginning with [[Special:PrefixIndex/Template:uw-huggle|"uw-huggle"]] were added. What exactly is a "huggle" that it needs to be warned about? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:[[WP:HUGGLE]] should help. From what I understand, the creator of the vandal-fighting tool did not care for the "uw-" templates and created his own warning templates, but I might have that wrong. However, they seem to now be redirects to the standard "uw-" templates. --'''[[User:12 Noon|<
::From what I remember of [[Template:Uw-huggle]] that was deleted at the end of the month (my memory might be wrong, but I am not an admin so I cannot check the deleted page to see), that page stated that the Huggle tool doesn't actually use templates, or something along those lines, but it used huggle1, 2 and so on for the benefit of certain other tools (I'm assuming bots and the like, that check for warnings to see which warning to administer next). Again, if an admin can check the text of the deleted page [[Template:Uw-huggle]], I might be wrong, but that's the best I can remember from memory. [[User:Dreaded Walrus|Dreaded Walrus]] <sup> [[User talk:Dreaded Walrus|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Dreaded Walrus|c]]</sup> 03:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Line 993 ⟶ 1,004:
"<noinclude>In order for certain processes to interpret them correctly, user warnings have to end with a comment of the form <tt><nowiki><!-- Template:uw-***n --></nowiki></tt>, where <tt>***</tt> is the warning series name and <tt>n</tt> is the warning level. [[WP:HUGGLE|Huggle]]'s warnings are not generated by templates; however, in order to conform to this pattern, the comments have to give the impression that they are. These non-existent templates all redirect here. They should not actually be used.</noinclude><includeonly>'''This is your last warning.''' If you continue to vandalize, we will send over someone who actually knows how to use warning templates. [[Aluminum bottle]].</includeonly>"
So it looks like the templates are not actually on Wikipedia but is generated by the tool itself. --[[User:Hdt83|<
== RFD for uw-vandalism4x and abbreviations ==
Line 1,009 ⟶ 1,020:
Thoughts? If there are no objections, I'll [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and handle it. Thanks! [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:The bolding is appropriate and should be implemented. But I believe it should state "you will be blocked" rather than "you may be blocked". If "may" is used, it suggests there is only a possibility they are violating the 3RR rule, in which case they should not have received the warning. The warning is used for editors who ''are'' edit warring, which means if they continue then they "will" be blocked, not "may" be blocked. Regards. --'''[[User:12 Noon|<
::...And using "Will" would match the other final warning templates. Level 3 warnings generally use "May", so this is another useful distinction. If there are no objects, then, I'll make the change later this afternoon. Thanks! [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 15:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::It's what was termed as a single issue template when the uw- warnings were created, and shouldn't be compared with either lvl 3 or 4 of the multi lvl'd system and is a warning in it's own right. There have been discussions along time ago about this warning at [[WP:UW]] and/or [[WP:UTM]] I can't remember. Now it's my re-collection that it should be ''may'' as 3RR has exceptions, and the syntax gives the receiving editor, a chance to explain his actions prior to a block being issued. The problem with warnings in regards to 3rr is it is very difficult to have a good faith level of warning, as it's such an arbitrary figure. This warning is trying to roll the aspects of informing a potential new user that their actions are unacceptable and pointing them in the right direction with maintaining a hard line to stop potential disruption to the project. This in my opinion is one example where a templated warning is almost certainly not as good as a good ol' personal message, and you are issuing this warning because you do not have the time to start a dialogue, such as a quick vandal or stalker reverting another editors edits. I would take this to WP:UW as well and ask the guys there, for their opinions. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::I have been bold and '''bolded''' the existing warning. The wording - "may" to "will" is a secondary change, and I'll discuss it over at [[WP:UW]] before any change. But, there seems to be agreement on the bolding of the warning to match other warnings, so I'll handle that. Thanks! [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 15:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::Sry I should have said I had no problems with the bolding, and good on ya' for being bold and doing the bold ;) <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== User page spam tag ==
Line 1,025 ⟶ 1,036:
:Looks good to me, but I'm no expert. Can't wait to get rid of some trolls with this... :P ([[User:ApostleJoe|ApJ]] ([[User talk:ApostleJoe|talk]]) 02:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC))
:Run it past the guys at [[WP:SPAM]] as well they're best placed to give contrcutive pointers there. Looks good to me, though is there anyway it can be boiler plated with the original, tweaking the wording to remove the article bias, so we have one template for both cases? Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== I think this template is going too far ==
Line 1,035 ⟶ 1,046:
:It seems this is not the only forum that you have brought this issue. To answer it from the UTM/UW perspective simply adding information to Wikipedia that does not have verifiable source (or removing information that is) can and often is challenged as POV. Continuing to do so whilst having been informed of wikipedia's POV policies is why these templates were created. That is to give editors a structured system whereby they can inform other editors that their edits are [[WP:POV|point of view]], maybe also considered to be [[WP:OR|original research]] and needs to have [[WP:VERIFY|verifiable]] sources, if after a number of warnings, these suggestions are not followed then blocks will be issued. Discuss first, achieve concensus and a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] then edit later. This usually removes the need for this type of template. If you want any help or direction don't hesitate to give me a shout. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
=== Explain ===
Line 1,048 ⟶ 1,059:
In <nowiki>{{subst:uw-npov1|Article|Additional text}}</nowiki>, I think "appears to carry a non-neutral point of view" should say "appears to me." Also, after "Please remember to observe our core policies," I think the template should say something like," Here's why I think your contribution was not in neutral point of view:" --[[User talk:Chuck Marean|Chuck Marean]] 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:That's what the second parser is for, for clarifying why the template was issued if further clarification is required. And as I explained above, it should not be "appears to me" or anything similar. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::I agree with Khukri. The template should really only be used if an edit pretty clearly violates NPOV - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arlen_Specter&diff=prev&oldid=189838871 here's] kind of an extreme example. If it's not pretty clear, then a template ought not be used.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Line 1,057 ⟶ 1,068:
:Wrong. Proof can be provided using the second parser and the article name is the first parser. If you read the project page "They are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more." The template is a tool, and does meet these requirements that you so require. The application of the NOR warning to your talk page prior to your block, and that fact you received personal messages as well, should leave an editor in no doubt as to which were the ''offending'' edits.
:I've re-factored the talk page to put all of your comments in the same place as they pertain to the same issue. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
:These templates ars only a way for a user to type something he means faster. If you have concerns regarding a single usage of a template, you should bring these concerns to the user that left the message. The "level 1" templates [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], which is not a free pass for everything but only means "first assume the user screwed up and did not mean to hurt the project". If the user continues there is then a need to be more pressing. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|<span style="color:#002BB8;">lucasbfr</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Lucasbfr|<span style="color:#001F7F;">talk</span>]]</sup> 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Line 1,068 ⟶ 1,079:
[[WP:WikiProject Spam#Tag 'em to stop 'em]] seems to say, when in doubt ("suspicious edits"), tag. I looked this up after a more experienced editor told me that there was a consensus to use this template in such cases. I am feeling a bit uneasy about the thought that this could be general practice. In my example the text of the template clearly doesn't explain what was wrong about the edit (no external links in the main text). So the message would seem to be: You have done something wrong, but we are not even taking the time to explain to you what, exactly, was the problem. This seems to be potentially alienating, and not in line with our usual leniency. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 21:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
:Similar to a previous post. This is where familiarity with the warnings comes into play. If you just slap a warning on a talk page without using either the article or the additional comment strings available within the template than your example would be accurate. But this is the fault of the editor not fully understanding the templates or using them to their potential, and not the template themselves. The templates were designed to be able to add additional information if so required to make the reason clearer. These are boilerplate templates with the ability to be slightly changed to meet individual circumstances, but taken from the front page ''"They are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more. If you cannot find a template that says what you want to say then go ahead and say it normally."''. Though in saying all this, if you can see a way where we can assume greater faith with the lvl 1 warning, please feel free to suggest it. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::That's what I imagined. But then I felt a bit intimidated by that particular editor's response when I asked him about this. To be frank, I have the impression that he tries to avoid typing wherever possible and that he doesn't mind if it comes across as uncivil. I will think about the language of the template; perhaps there is a way to make it harder to abuse it in this way. Cheers. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
== Archiving talkpage of [[Template talk:Test-self]] ==
===Conditional link===
I thought we decided not to use {{tl|qif}} on test templates? -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 00:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 1,081 ⟶ 1,093:
===Moved documentation===
It's now at [[Template:Test-self/doc]].<
=== Grammar ===
Line 1,104 ⟶ 1,116:
::or
::*"If you would like to experiment again, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]."
::-- <
== Manual of Style warning templates ==
When used with an article parameter, these templates currently read something along the lines of the following:
:Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to [[:Article]], makes it harder to read.
I've gone through and changed these instances to read ''"in [[:Article]]"'' rather than ''"to [[:Article]]"''; one uses styles ''in'' articles, not ''to'' articles. If anyone has any objections, please discuss and/or revert as necessary. [[User:Haza-w|<b style="color:#FF0000;">haz</b>]] <span style="font-size:x-small;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]])</span> 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
== Needed: Plagiarism warnings ==
I just reverted some instances of plagiarism of books found on Google books, and I couldn't find an appropriate warning to issue to the user. I used a vandalism warning with a note I added about plagiarism.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12.170.123.253&curid=15764029&diff=191587663&oldid=191579919] It would be nice if a series of warning templates existed to warn users that we shouldn't copy the works of others in Wikipedia.
In a similar vein, a series of copyvio warnings would also be useful. The plagriarism warnings would be used in cases of no copyright violation (like copying from Google books, which aren't copyrighted). =[[User:Axlq|Axlq]] ([[User talk:Axlq|talk]]) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:For most cases the {{tl|uw-copyright}} meet the requirements, the series of warnings (copyvio's) were deleted quite sometime ago, as there is no grey area. You are either adding copyrighted material to wikipedia or not, hence there is a single issue warning and the material is instantly removed.
:As I understand it though, if the works fall under [[free content]] (personally not sure google books do) then there is no problems with its inclusion within wikipedia, and what is then be objected to is the actual wording of the edits themselves making it a content dispute. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 08:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::I generally agree with Khukri. The most serious issue for WP is copyright violation, and we have a strong warning for that. For our purposes, most instances of plagiarism can be treated the same as copyright violation. If the content is taken from a google (or other) book that is in the public ___domain, that is legally OK, though it is intellectually dishonest and violates [[WP:V]]. However, our articles are dynamic so that the plagiarised content should eventually be sufficiently changed or removed.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
== Rewrite suggestion ==
I have this suggestion to rewrite the level one vandalism warning to make it sound more official:
This is a level-one warning. Please be more concerned about you use of the “save this page” button. Your recent page-blanking, graffiti, saucy remark, or etc, shown on this diff page did not seem to improve the article. Be advised that to respect our readers it’s possible for individual privileges to use the “edit this page” tab to be turned off, or blocked. Curiosity based edits can be done on official test pages called sandboxes. This has been a level-one warning.
The above wording, I think, would make the warning sound like a serious warning. --[[User talk:Chuck Marean|Chuck Marean]] 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:Deja vu anyone? <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::Indeed. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|<span style="color:black;">Zim</span><b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b><span style="color:black;">Bim</span>]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
:I don't see how that's more serious or official than the present template; it just appears to be more verbose. [[User:Nufy8|Nufy8]] ([[User talk:Nufy8|talk]]) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
== Documentation ==
Should the link in the sentence "For usage instructions regarding this template, see documentation" really point here, to the talk page? --[[User:DocumentN|DocumentN]] ([[User talk:DocumentN|talk]]) 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
: I don't think so, and I agree with your point; I just clicked on that link and expected something else. <span style="color:purple;">♠</span>[[User:TomasBat|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;"><span style="color:green;">TomasBat</span></span>]] 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
== Image tags ==
If somebody removes a source needed tag from an image {{tl|Di-no source}} without providing a source, what is the correct tag to use for them? '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">[[User:TJ Spyke|<span style="color:Maroon;">TJ</span>]] [[User talk:TJ Spyke|<span style="color:Maroon;">Spyke</span>]]</span>''' 12:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
:You can start with a {{tl|uw-d1}} as a good faith, then work up to {{tl|uw-d3}}. After that for the final warning, if they do not engage in discussion, you say it as you see it which is vandalism {{tl|uw-v4}}. The deletion templates are a generic to cover all types of problems so you could use something like ''<nowiki>{{subst:uw-d1|image:name.jpg|This is concerning your recent removal of the no source tag. Please discuss this issue and do not remove the tag until resolved. Thank you}}</nowiki>''. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
== trolling ==
is there in existence a template message to address trolling? if so, can you tell me? if not, can someone create one? [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] ([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]]) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:It depends on the exact circumstance, but we tend to class any edits detrimental to the project as vandalism, i.e {{tl|uw-v1}} -> {{tl|uw-v4}}. If you can give us more details we can tell you which template to use and how to word it accordingly. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 12:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::Specifically, I wanted to respond to [[User:195.188.183.89]] about these edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dawat-e-Islami&diff=prev&oldid=194676607],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dawat-e-Islami&diff=prev&oldid=194676882],
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dawat-e-Islami&diff=prev&oldid=194679014]. I thought a trolling message would be useful here. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] ([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]]) 13:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry to say this, but it's content dispute and not really the realm of warning templates. You may want to read here [[WP:DISPUTE]] for some pointers. I would however consider the legal threat side of things quite seriously read [[WP:NLT|here]] and consider taking it to [[WP:ANI]], unfortunately I'm off now for a few hours, so would likely leave it hanging. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
== Revert means return ==
My version of this template, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-vandalism1&oldid=194869678], uses the word revert correctly. My version sounds like a warning against vandalism, and it encourages people to read. -- [[User talk:Chuck Marean|Chuck Marean]] 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:Quote: "Level 1 – Assumes good faith. Generally includes 'Welcome to Wikipedia' or some variant."
:Your version very quickly gets into "the response to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|malicious mischief]] is [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocking]] or [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning]] the vandal." It reads like a indirect threat to block, which I think is somewhat strong for a message which assumes good faith. If you want a template that reads more like a "warning against vandalism", use one of the higher level templates. --[[User talk:Charles Sturm|Sturm]] 19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::Chuck, you're aware that there are [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Warnings and notices|multiple levels of warnings]], right? This level 1 warning is appropriately worded to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and not [[WP:BITE|bite any new editors who simply made a mistake]]. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|<span style="color:black;">Zim</span><b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b><span style="color:black;">Bim</span>]] [[User talk:ZimZalaBim|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:Your points have been answered previously and you do not wish to engage in discussion. Re-raising the same old points will be given due attention they deserve. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
::For a level 1, that sounds rather harsh and scary, especially to new users who don't know levels 2, 3, and 4 exist. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
== Should vandalism templates link to articles or oldid's? ==
If you warn someone to stop vandalise an article, what proof do you have if you link to the already fixed article? -[[Special:Contributions/62.219.107.28|62.219.107.28]] ([[User talk:62.219.107.28|talk]]) 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:Only takes a couple of seconds to look in the articles history, and find the diffs if there is a dispute. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
::Not if the warning is an old one, or to a frequently edited article. And in some rare cases the warned user may not know what edit the warning refers to; such as hypothetically in cases of shared IPs, mistaken identity due to similar usernames, or serious failure to [[WP:AGF]]. It's kind of like saying wikilinks are a pointless feature when it only takes a couple more seconds to type out a proper HTML link. --[[User:DocumentN|DocumentN]] ([[User talk:DocumentN|talk]]) 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
== "Contact me" ==
Why does [[template:uw-unsourced2]] (and only 2) include the line "Contact me if you need assistance adding references." Is there a version that says "If you require assistance, please feel free to contact somebody else"? '''[[User:Torc2|<span style="color:#4B0082;">—Torc.</span>]]''' <sup><span style="color:#4F7C4F;">(</span>[[User_talk:Torc2|<span style="color:#4F7C4F;">Talk.</span>]]<span style="color:#4B0082;">)</span></sup> 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
:The "contact me" section was added in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-unsourced2&diff=153350397&oldid=143060008 August, last year], with an edit summary "changes per comments on my talk page". It seems to have been a response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeepday&oldid=153383260#Sources this exchange]. [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-unsourced1&diff=153350005&oldid=152619862 similar edit] to {{Tl|Uw-unsourced2}}, but that was reverted. --[[User talk:Charles Sturm|Sturm]] 08:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
: I have to say if you are going to issue a warning template, you have to be ready to help out and educate a new editor who may not know better. It's not all about issuing templates and then let someone clear up afterwards. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 09:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:: If you strongly suspect a user is making stuff up, you might consider it better to risk scaring off a good editor than to ignore a bad one potentially fouling up articles that may not be immediately fixed. --[[User:DocumentN|DocumentN]] ([[User talk:DocumentN|talk]]) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
== stranded discussion ==
I recently merged the template {{tl|Test-self}} into {{tl|uw-selfrevert}}, but I didn't know where we wanted to put the discussion. So now there is some discussion from last year at [[Template_talk:Test-self]], all by its lonesome. Do we want to merge it here or archive it here so it's not sitting out there attached to a redirect?--[[User:Doug|Doug.]]<sup>([[User talk:Doug|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Doug|contribs]])</sup> 23:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:I'll slot it in to the archive here. cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
== Recreating deleted content? ==
I thought that there was a warning for recreating deleted content, but upon looking for it just now I can't find it. Was it deleted? moved? just a figment of my imagination? something else? [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:Are you referring to {{tl|uw-recreated}} ... ? --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
== Link to uncyclopedia? ==
Hey, I read [[Uncyclopedia]] (a parody of wikipedia) a lot, and I think that a sugesstion to go there would be appropriate for this template[humor, level 1], but I'd like to know what everyone else think, or how such a sugesstion should be worded. What do y'all think? [[User:Rustyfence|Rustyfence]] ([[User talk:Rustyfence|talk]]) 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:There is a series of warnings already about people trying to create humourous entries {{tl|uw-joke1}} -> {{tl|uw-joke4}}, there used to be a reference to Uncyclopedia but it was removed, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Uw-joke1&oldid=121671486 here] and there have been many other discussion relating to this scattered around, and most times I've seen it not accepted for varying reasons. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
== Wording ==
The boilerplate text "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to '''Foo'''," can have a double meaning if '''Foo''' is the name of a city or other place often vandalized. [[Special:Contributions/4.242.147.147|4.242.147.147]] ([[User talk:4.242.147.147|talk]]) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
== NavBox of these templates for my own user page? ==
Is there a summary template of these templates similar to [[template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines]]? --[[User:Adoniscik|Adoniscik]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Adoniscik|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Adoniscik|c]])</small></sup> 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
:Only [[WP:TT]], but it's difficult to summarise 200+ talk page templates unfortunately. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 10:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
== {{tl|Uw-editsummary}} ==
See [[User:MBK004/Pet peeve]] for a more comprehensive (but POV) version. --[[User:AlastairIrvine|AlastairIrvine]] ([[User talk:AlastairIrvine|talk]]) 15:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
== Prune the icons ==
The [[:Image:Information.svg|icon]] at the front of the {{tl|Uw-vandalism1|}} and {{tl|Uw-vandalism2}} templates is making those templates less helpful and making the pages harder to read. The problem comes on pages where (mostly anonymous) users gather a rapid pattern of warnings about vandalism. Subsequent editors and admins need to rapidly scan the page to see what level of warning was last applied and decide what level of escalation is appropriate. The icons get in the way of quickly reading the page.
If they were consistently applied across all the level 1 and 2 warnings (like, for example, the warning triangle on the level 3s), it would be different. Then, subsequent editors would at least be able to read the page consistently. As it is, you've got a series of warnings, some with the icon, some without. The visual effect is unnecessarily confusing.
Note: I recommend against applying the icon to ''all'' the level 1 and 2 warnings 1) because I don't think you can find all the templates in use and 2) because I don't think the images add enough to the debate to justify the burden on the pageload. Yes, they're small images but they don't really add anything to the meaning or interpretation. Even a small burden should be avoided unless there is some advantage to including them. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 21:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
:In my opinion there should be an icon that indicates a level 1 warning. If it is this icon (I came here from [[:Template:Uw-vandalism1]] and address that), so be it. This ([[:Template:Uw-vandalism1]]) is among the most heavily used of the level 1 templates. If consistency is desired, then strive for consistency in information enhancement rather than for lowest common denominator. --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 01:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
:P.S. I would advocate using a different icon for level 1 and level 2. For instance, if level 1 is a calming blue, make level 2 have some orange in it to indicate a level of distress. --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 01:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
:There has been alot of discussion about the icons in the past, look through the archive here, and at [[WT:UW]]. First of all the UW series of warnings all have icons. We created this system to have the same look and feel across the board with the warnings. Now the problem we have is some people don't like icons, some people like smiley faces, some like them in leery great fluorescent boxes, and trying to change these editors minds is like trying to herd cats. People have their favourite warnings and don't want them touched, which was where the UW prefix came in. As an admin, before I can issue a block I have to look through the edits themselves, the contributions, and the talk page. I find there is an advantage as the icon makes scanning the page much easier to see the levels of warnings that have been previously issued. With the icons removed, they would not standout from standard talk page messages or anything else. With the exception of a few editor who I know don't like the warnings, the majority of warnings I now see on talk page over the last year, are the UW warning and their layout gives a uniform look across page. The older warning are what make it look like a mess.
::Just in reply to, Ceyockey level 2 should be faith neutral, and not about distress, hence the ''warning'' should be seen more as informative, hence the icon. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for clarifying this. --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 23:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Speaking as an admin who spends a fairly good amount of time at AIV, if editors do not use the recommended numbering layout, then the icons work almost as well when it comes to giving an immediate visual reference for where new warnings start. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
== Warning for BLP privacy violations ==
I can see a template for violations of a user's privacy, but is there a template for violations of a article subject's privacy? Thanks, [[User:Andjam|Andjam]] ([[User talk:Andjam|talk]]) 11:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
== Another section header? ==
I go here fairly often to copy a warning template, but there is a ''lot'' of scrolling to do as the Table of Contents does not show up until after the introducing text. I'm going to add the TOC magic word after the first paragraph, I hope noone minds this. [[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]] ([[User talk:Jobjörn|talk]]) 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
:I like it (same problem) but I tried moving the TOC tag higher, before the first text paragraph, and think that even better. Otherwise it reads clumsy splitting the two paragraphs. I didn't save that version but would like it higher. Can the TOC be higher and off to the side so as not to stop the flow of the text? [[User:Shenme|Shenme]] ([[User talk:Shenme|talk]]) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
::Done! [[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]] ([[User talk:Jobjörn|talk]]) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
== Huggle ==
Wth does "huggle" mean?! [[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]] ([[User talk:Jobjörn|talk]]) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
:See also - [[WP:HUGGLE]]. It's software for dealing with Vandalism. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
::Right. Why does it have its own template? (Or rather, its own redirect to a template?) [[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]] ([[User talk:Jobjörn|talk]]) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't know - I imagine it would be to highlight that the template was placed in a semi-automated fashion using the software. I can't really think of another reason, but someone else might know of one. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Huggle uses its own warning messages. However, for these messages to be correctly identified by certain automated processes, such as [[User:ClueBot|ClueBot]], they have to contain a comment of the form <tt><nowiki><!-- Template:Uw-* --></nowiki></tt> with the <tt>*</tt> replaced by the warning type and level. Huggle therefore inserts such comments, but in doing so gives the impression that the warning messages exist as templates, which they do not. These supposed template names are redirected to roughly equivalent actual templates in case anyone actually tries to use them – [[User talk:Gurchzilla|Gurchzilla]] 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
== Older set of warnings don't match with current set ==
There is an older set of warning templates (such as [[Template:Test4]]) in which the final warning reads "this is your last warning" whereas in the newer set the warnings read "this is the last warning you will receive for you disruptive edits". I think that the warnings should match. If no one has any objections within a week's time, I'll change one to match the other.--[[User:Urban Rose|<span style="color:purple; font-family:comic sans ms;">Urban</span>]] [[User talk:Urban Rose|<span style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus;">Rose</span>]] 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
:Please do not touch the old warnings as you will incur the wrath of certain editors who do not like the standardised system. Look through the archive discussions here and at [[WT:UW]] for more info. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 10:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
== Supplying multiple links in the same template ==
Most of these templates (if not all) are {{tlx|uw-example|article|some text}}. Why not at least allowing {{tlx|uw-something|article1|some text|article2}}? I've also tried {{uw-example|article1]] and [[article2}} but you see what (at least currently) happens... -[[Special:Contributions/62.219.107.171|62.219.107.171]] ([[User talk:62.219.107.171|talk]]) 21:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
:These templates are boilerplate to fit most circumstances, the cases where two article names are required are rare and I would suggest this would be an ideal example for a handwritten warning. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
== One thing: Not Clear ==
One thing about this article isn't clear to me. So ''when'' do you take a step up to the next level of warning templates?
:<span class="nounderlinelink">[[User:The Unknown Hitchhiker/Secret Link|<span style="color:#ffffff">O</span>]]—— [[User:The Unknown Hitchhiker|<span style="color:#258498">'''The Unknown Hi'''</span>]][[Animusic|<span style="color:#aec804">'''tc'''</span>]][[User talk:The Unknown Hitchhiker|<span style="color:#b0200c">'''hh'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/The_Unknown_Hitchhiker|<span style="color:#596411">'''ik'''</span>]][[User:The Unknown Hitchhiker/Guestbook|<span style="color:#48d71d">'''er'''</span>]] 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
:There's no rigid rule for warnings, but generally you should increase the level if the user does not heed previous warnings and continues to disrupt. Starting with level one, then going to two if the user continues, then three if he/she does it again, etc., is a pretty standard method. However, such a progression is not mandatory; for example, if a user has no warnings and is ''blatantly'' vandalizing articles, you may want to begin with <nowiki>{{subst:uw-vandalism3}}</nowiki>. It's all about discretion, really. [[User:Nufy8|Nufy8]] ([[User talk:Nufy8|talk]]) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
::So if I see another warning in the user's talk page, say a '''Level 1''' warning about a different article. So if that person vandalizes again, should I put in a level 2 warning?
:<span class="nounderlinelink">[[User:The Unknown Hitchhiker/Secret Link|<span style="color:#ffffff">O</span>]]—— [[User:The Unknown Hitchhiker|<span style="color:#258498">'''The Unknown Hi'''</span>]][[Animusic|<span style="color:#aec804">'''tc'''</span>]][[User talk:The Unknown Hitchhiker|<span style="color:#b0200c">'''hh'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/The_Unknown_Hitchhiker|<span style="color:#596411">'''ik'''</span>]][[User:The Unknown Hitchhiker/Guestbook|<span style="color:#48d71d">'''er'''</span>]] 06:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Yeah, that would work. [[User:Nufy8|Nufy8]] ([[User talk:Nufy8|talk]]) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
== agf template ==
I'm a little concerned with the series of templates starting with {{t1|Uw-agf1}}. There's actually already an excellent essay on the problem with this series of templates: [[Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith]]. This template fails to do this. As such, the template is ironic, in that it will very often be used without the same assumption for which it calls. I'm sure we've all seen disputes on Wikipedia that devolve into editors telling each other to assume good faith. "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?" While certainly well meaning, I believe this template has almost no potential to be effective. An editor exhorted to assume good faith with a template is not going to wonder if and start assuming good faith, but he will feel that he's been condescended to. If others agree, perhaps we should deprecate this warning series? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] ([[User talk:JayHenry|talk]]) 00:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:If an editor used a template like that in a generic form then it would be themselves that is at fault, not the template itself. It's an intro point to the etiquette of dealing with other editors for those that might generally not understand how to conduct themselves. The template is boilerplate and gives a starting point. In specific cases you would modify the template to suit the circumstance using the inbuilt parsered comments.
:''<nowiki>{{subst:uw-agf1|Talk:Article|It's not generally accepted to tell someone to "go take a running jump" whilst discussing your recent edits, and you will find editors far more ameniable to discussion if you try to understand their actions first.}}</nowiki>''
:I personally think these templates do serve a purpose and give editors a starting point, but if you think this can be improved by re-wording them go ahead. If people are going to get upset by a template, do you not think the same editors will still get upset by slapping a link on their talk page to the essay and saying ''"I suggest you read that"''. These templates are not to be used to hide behind (as it says on the project page) as some form of pseudo officialdom but we should also not avoid pointing out to editors where their edits or behaviour is deemed to be unacceptable. As it says on the front page ''You are responsible for ensuring that the template's text is appropriate to the violation: if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template.'' but that doesn't mean we shouldn't re-word it. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 09:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:: Thank you for your thoughtful response, but unfortunately I don't think the wording of {{t1|uw-agf1}}, {{t1|uw-agf2}} and {{t1|uw-agf3}} can be improved. The point is not the template itself, but rather that in my time here I've never seen an exhortation to Assume Good Faith to be an effective method of either calming a dispute or getting someone to assume good faith. I would even go so far as to say that the majority of instances in which [[WP:AGF]] is linked it is done so hypocritically. The people that most frequently link this essay are ''invariably'' guilty of violating it. I of course agree that we should point out to editors where their edits or behavior are unacceptable. But a ''generic'' AGF warning, of any sort, is simply either ineffective or more likely damagingly counterproductive. Good faith must be demonstrated, rather than generically linked. "I understand you disagree with So-and-so but when I look at this from his perspective, etc." This template blunts that message, as it does not afford the very assumption it exhorts. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] ([[User talk:JayHenry|talk]]) 23:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
::: I understand your position, but to me the problem seems then that we will avoid telling editors about AGF in case we are being hypocritical and not assuming it ourselves? There is behaviour on Wikipedia that warrants the use of these templates for unacceptable behaviour, now are majority of users who use this template are hypocritical I personally don't believe so and think it's subjective opinion. What systems would you have in place to inform and ensure editors understand one of the key tenets of Wikipedia or do we turn a blind eye to it for fear of being considered hypocritical ourselves? <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 07:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
== Related TfD and MfD ==
Please see [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 9#Template:uw-toilet1 and Template:uw-toilet2|the TfD discussion]] for the nomination of {{tl|uw-toilet1}} and {{tl|uw-toilet2}} for deletion. The related [[Wikipedia:Toilet]] is similarily up for MfD at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Toilet]] --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Resolved. </span>{{#if: All have been snowball deleted. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">All have been snowball deleted. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)</span>}}</div>
== level three templates {{tl|uw-v3}} ==
I want to know if anyone feels the same way I do about the "Please stop." in them. To me the "please stop" just sounds like "Please stop, you're hurting Wikipedia, pretty please stop", and it sounds like a violation of [[WP:DENY]], strangely enough I find the ones that go "please stop doing such and such" to be better than the ones that just have "Please stop." as the first sentence, so I propose changing uw-vandalism3 (and similar) to "Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia or you will be blocked from editing" or dropping it all together "Don't vandalize Wikipedia or you will be blocked from editing" or possible something completely different like "Please refrain from vandalizing pages or you will be blocked from editing", and frankly there are a lot of possibilities, I just want to know if anybody else is displeased with the wording of level three templates, and if yes, what should it be changed to? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[[user:Dominik92|The Dominator]]</span><span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"><sup>[[user talk:Dominik92|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Dominik92|Edits]]</sub></span> 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:One motivation (if I remember correctly from reading discussions back when) was that the first part of the message should be as simple as possible, because at least some users will be non-English speakers. If they didn't understand (presumably) other messages they should get the later ones. So a really short phrase is a good idea. I mean, compare uw-v1, uw-v2, and uw-v3. 'refrain' is not often in my vocabulary, 'constructive' looks like Latin, and 'vandalizing' looks Dutch. But 'stop' I know in a couple different languages. We want them to get at least this part.
:Then there was the consideration that the admonition should be as polite as possible, while still being to the point. 'Please' is another word they should know, and we're not cursing at them, so we haven't lost our self-respect, even though we're losing respect for them.
:Very probably if you went back into the archived discussions you'd find someone saying exactly the same things you are above. But in combination with all the concerns I think they came up with a workable set of messages. Though, an icon of a knife pinning a hand to a keyboard might've been fun to try out during school times... ;-) [[User:Shenme|Shenme]] ([[User talk:Shenme|talk]]) 03:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
::But if there's a non-English vandal, and he's blatantly vandalizing, he knows he's doing wrong, so just seeing the warning symbol is enough for him to understand that we're asking him to stop doing what he's doing, in this case, the warnings are merely procedure as the person knows that they're vandalizing anyway. I like the idea of the knife though. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[[user:Dominik92|The Dominator]]</span><span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"><sup>[[user talk:Dominik92|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Dominik92|Edits]]</sub></span> 04:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:The lvl3 warning is the first of the two stern warnings (if the series has a lvl4). Originally it was foreseen that a new user/clean talk page would receive a lvl1 warning and a returning user would receive a lvl2, then we would go 3 - 4. Unfortunately this is rarely followed these days, along with us taking the moral high ground and trying to educate vandals has gone out of the window and it's almost always 4im warnings that are issued these days.
:I have to agree to some extent with Shenme above whilst we are beginning to say ''"Oi we don't like what you are doing"'' we are still doing it politely. However I can see how it's currently worded could seem a tad 'whiney', though your examples are quite hard and are more along the lines of a lvl4 warning. Make a few suggestions keeping it polite but informing the user of <u>possible</u> repercussions for their actions, and we'll have a look at them. Though what ever change is decided upon it must be across the board. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 07:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
::I'd be happy with anything that doesn't use the "please stop" as a single sentence and possibly that doesn't connect the vandalism to WIkipedia as a whole, this makes it seem like the vandal is doing collateral damage, I think "Please stop vandalizing or you might/could be blocked from editing Wikipedia" or "Please don't vandalize or you run the risk of being blocked from editing Wikipedia". Or, "Please don't vandalize or you might lose editing privileges thank you." <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[[user:Dominik92|The Dominator]]</span><span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"><sup>[[user talk:Dominik92|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Dominik92|Edits]]</sub></span> 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
== Big problem with one set of warnings. ==
The joke warning, that begins with "Thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia", is basically encouraging more vandalism by congratulating the user for the joke. This should be changed. [[User:MalwareSmarts|MalwareSmarts]] ([[User talk:MalwareSmarts|talk]]) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:I wouldn't say it's encouraging the vandalism, but I don't like it either, to me it seems rather condescending and frankly, I don't see the point of this set to even exist, 99% of "joke" edits are bad faith and actually vandalism, I don't think many people go to Wikipedia thinking it's a joke sight and this template is misused IMO, it should only be used if people use a tone that suggests humor rather than people who go to an article and just add nonsense, that's vandalism, not a joke edit. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[[user:Dominik92|The Dominator]]</span><span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"><sup>[[user talk:Dominik92|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Dominik92|Edits]]</sub></span> 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::Originated for the meme of uncyclopedia type edits a couple of years ago. While joking and the creation sometimes mildly humorous articles were a pain in the proverbial, if editors have the ability and intelligence to write long convoluted humorous articles then they could if persuaded maybe help the project. Hence for things like this it was deemed it may not be best way to bring them over to the good side if we instantly call them a vandal. Even though it is vandalism it's not always necessary to reach for the big V templates straight away. If you issue two joke templates and finish with a V4 what harm has it done if it ends in a block anyway, <u>but</u> if the editor start contributing positively to wikipedia, for taking a more tactile approach instead of authoritarian we have a net gain. Some of you may wish to read [[Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#To_fellow_administrators|this]] discussion at AIV. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 11:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
== Wording of [[:template:uw-legal]] ==
It seems to me that applying the {{tl|uw-legal}} warning frequently results in complaints from the recipient that it's a bogus warning because wikipedia cannot prevent their use of legal counsel, resulting in someone here needing to clarify that the template actually means that if they choose to take legal action, we cannot prevent it; but we require that they do not edit Wikipedia until the legal issue has been resolved both to prevent the threat from being leveraged as intimidation against others; as well as to ensure that the issue is dealt with entirely through proper legal channels and not on Wikipedia itself. Granted the linked policy also clarifies this, but it seems that rather than follow the link, people react to the warning's text of "''Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility.''"
Wouldn't we save all parties concerned some extra frustration if we re-worded the warning template to say what is truly meant? --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 19:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:What is your proposed replacement? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
::I was thinking about a few different complete re-writes on the warning; but I supose the simplest would be just to modify the one sentence to read "''Please note continuing to edit or post within Wikipedia while engaging in legal action is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility.''" --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm willing to make the change myself; but due to the high visibility, I would prefer to have discussion on it first to verify consensus supports the change. Proposed change:
:::Current:
::::Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution.
:::Proposed:
::::Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that continuing to edit or post within Wikipedia while engaging in legal action is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution.
:::Any opinions on this change? --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Your proposed language might work well with respect to threats of litigation against Wikimedia Foundation. However, most of the legal threats that I have encountered are threats against individual editors (e.g., "Persons who make further edits to this article will be tracked down and subjected to litigation"), in which case it is necessary and appropriate to say "this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility." --[[Special:Contributions/160.91.24.33|160.91.24.33]] ([[User talk:160.91.24.33|talk]]) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't think that the proposed revision is worth doing. It's over-cautious, and it's not even complete, since we don't want them editing Wikipedia while *threatening* not just *while actually following through*. WE can't tell people not to seek legal redress if they want to. Surely that is sufficiently obvious that it doesn't require us to underline it in the actual text of the warning. If the editor for whom you leave the {{tl|uw-legal}} warning responds in a puzzled fashion, you can explain the problem at that time. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::There's the problem, from my experience it's the majority of the time that they respond that we have no right to restrict their access to seek legal action (not just from me applying to template, which has been rare - I usually walk into the conversation after someone else has applied the template. I'll write up a disclaimer for myself, that I'll just get into the habit of applying at the same time that I need to use uw-legal. My proposed change may not be ideal, but neither is the current state. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
== [[Template:Italicize]] ==
I went ahead and redirected this template to {{tl|Uw-italicize}}. It appeared to serve the exact same purpose anyway. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
== square brackets in user - welcome? ==
Have a look at user welcome templates. Some are listed with square brackets; is that right?
<code><nowiki>
{{subst:W-basic]]}}</br>
{{subst:W-link]]}}
</nowiki></code></br>
[[User:DanBealeCocks|<span style="color:orange;background:black; ">Dan Beale-Cocks</span>]] 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:No clue why they are there, but looking at the past 100 revisions, the extra brackets have been there since at least November 2007. Very odd ... --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
== Trivia template ==
Should the entry for uw-trivia be removed since the template was deleted? [[User:Swaq|<span style="color:#9eee00;">swa</span>]][[User talk:Swaq|<span style="color:#009eee;">q</span>]] 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:Yea go ahead, but I'm a bit more concerned that no-one around here was informed about it's deletion. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
::Why was it deleted? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[[user:Dominik92|The Dominator]]</span><span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"><sup>[[user talk:Dominik92|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Dominik92|Edits]]</sub></span> 06:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
== [[Template:Uw-aiv|<nowiki>{{uw-aiv}}</nowiki>]] update ==
Per extensive discussion on [[WT:AIV|AIV talk]], the AIV user warning template has been rewritten. Just a notice as to what has happened. <span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy; color:blue;">[[User:Steve Crossin|<span style="color:blue;">Steve Crossin</span>]] [[User talk:Steve Crossin|<span style="color:blue;">(talk)</span>]] [[User talk:Steve Crossin/Anon Talk|<span style="color:blue;">(anon talk)</span>]]</span> 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the words "good faith" link to [[WP:AGF]]? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[[user:Dominik92|The Dominator]]</span><span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"><sup>[[user talk:Dominik92|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Dominik92|Edits]]</sub></span> 05:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'm fine with that, I'll add it in now. <span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy; color:blue;">[[User:Steve Crossin|<span style="color:blue;">Steve Crossin</span>]] [[User talk:Steve Crossin|<span style="color:blue;">(talk)</span>]] [[User talk:Steve Crossin/Anon Talk|<span style="color:blue;">(anon talk)</span>]]</span> 07:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) {{doing}}
{{done}} <span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy; color:blue;">[[User:Steve Crossin|<span style="color:blue;">Steve Crossin</span>]] [[User talk:Steve Crossin|<span style="color:blue;">(talk)</span>]] [[User talk:Steve Crossin/Anon Talk|<span style="color:blue;">(anon talk)</span>]]</span> 07:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
== Uw-delete vs. BLP. ==
Can the Uw-delete templates please be ammended to indicate that deleting unsourced info is not only allowed but actually encouraged? People are for instance deleting unsourced text from articles about themselves, only to have regular editors continuously putting the unsourced text back. The subjects of articles are actually following [[wp:v]] and [[wp:blp]] (but sometimes not putting in edit summaries) and the people who should know better are ignoring two of the absolutely most important policies on WP. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2008-04-05[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]16:26z, -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2008-04-05[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]21:26z
:No problems at all, I would suggest maybe mentioning the BLP issue in the level 1 template, asking that deletions are discussed either before or unless there are serious issues after the deletion. Though from what I've seen I will say the BLP issues are few and far between in comparison to the run of the mill deletion vandalism, but just have a higher profile. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#6633cc;">Khu</span>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#CC66FF;">kri</span>''']]</sup> 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
::{{tl|uw-delete1}} was changed on April 19 to add the word 'sourced', citing this discussion. This makes the template useless for talking to users who are deleting unsourced but verifiable (if not verified) material without edit summaries. Perhaps there is another wording that would satisfy [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]]'s concern. --[[User:Hro%C3%B0ulf|Hroðulf]] (or Hrothulf) ([[User talk:Hro%C3%B0ulf|Talk]]) 13:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree. This has basically made the template useless. We'll have to use v1 now for blanking of pages and removal of unsourced material. <span style="font-family:Arial;">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></span> 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Indeed. I have boldly removed the "sourced" wording. It is entirely possible to disruptively remove material from a non-BLP article, which is itself unsourced, and not at all BLP related. Indeed, uw-delete1 only asks for uses to explain themselves; even in deleting unsourced BLP material, an edit summary or talk page note is still needed... without that explanation, we have no idea ''why'' material was removed. The use of the word "sourced" in the template makes it seem like any material not directly cited by footnotes can be removed from any article at any time without problem, this is decidedly NOT the case... --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 03:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Good call. I agree with both the revert and the reasoning. It's a great template for ''unexplained'' removal of content.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::[[wp:v]]: "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies."
::::::[[wp:v]]: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
::::::[[wp:v]]: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. –Jimmy Wales"
::::::-- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2008-04-23[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]20:18z
:::::::All true. And if an editor wants to remove questionable unsourced info, all he or she needs to do is explain that in the edit summary or drop a note on the talk page. However, if someone removes a paragraph (or more) of content without explanation, that's a problem. We have no idea if it's a legitimate edit to clean up the article or simple vandalism, and that's the situation this template was designed for.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 02:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed. The problem with removing content is ''unexplained'' removal. There are many good reasons to remove content from an article. There are no good reasons to do so without explaining WHY you are doing so. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 19:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::The good reason is that newbies are removing libel and then getting these warnings for following the common sense [[wp:blp]] and [[wp:v]], but not knowing about edit summaries. [[wp:blp]] and [[wp:v]] are much, much more important than edit summaries. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2008-04-26[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]20:26z
::::::::::Question: How do you know that they are removing libel, and not just randomly removing chunks of text from an article? --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 20:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::You can have a look at what was removed, but even if it's not libel, [[wp:v]] allows anyone to remove unsourced text and states "It [unsourced info] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Changing the warnings to indicate that removing of ''well sourced'' info is a problem, will massively reduce people from incorrectly getting the warnings for correctly following [[wp:v]] and [[wp:blp]]. If edit summaries are the problem there's {{tl|Editsummary}}, {{tl|Summary}}, and {{tl|Summary2}}. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2008-04-27[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]19:16z
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
:''The following discussion is archived from [[Template talk:Uw-birthday]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
== Author's note ==
Yes, this is something of a joke, but I have already used it twice in the couple of days since I created it. "Birthday" vandalism is so common that I once made a request on [[WP:AN]] to semiprotect all date articles such as [[February 15]] because of excessive vandalism. [[User:Shalom|Shalom]] ([[User talk:Shalom|Hello]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shalom|Peace]]) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
:See [[User:Mufka/uw-date1]] and [[User:Mufka/uw-date2]]-- <span style="color:#000080;">Mufka</span> [[User:Mufka|<sup>(u)</sup>]] [[User talk:Mufka|<sup>(t)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mufka|<sup>(c)</sup>]] 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
</div>
<br />
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
:''The following discussion is archived from [[Template talk:Uw-adminabuse]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
Nicely done. A sensitively worded template. :-) [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 23:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
:Moved to Uw (User warning)? I thought the whole point was that this was a post-modern ironic comment on not using user warning templates? :-) [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 01:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I took it literally, because I thought it was a good idea. Good call on the move. [[User:Until(1 == 2)|<span style="color:maroon;">Until</span>]][[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|<span style="color:black;">(<span style="color:blue;">1 <span style="color:maroon;">==</span> 2</span>)</span>]] 01:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
::Categories. Needs categories. I'm hopeless on categorising Uw templates. Let's try [[:Category:User warning templates]]. Huh? We have 558 of those? Scary. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 01:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't think this fits the standard uw-style, and only templates fitting that style are normally given uw- names. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings]]. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:It is really meant as a more of a friendly piece of advice than a user "warning" anyways. [[User:Until(1 == 2)|<span style="color:maroon;">Until</span>]][[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|<span style="color:black;">(<span style="color:blue;">1 <span style="color:maroon;">==</span> 2</span>)</span>]] 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
::Several of the "user warning" templates are friendly advice as well. Not things that will lead to a direct block, but things that a user may not have realised, or didn't understand well. (That includes things like signing posts, substituting warning templates, and reporting non-obvious vandalism to AIV.) [[User:ConMan|Confusing Manifestation]] 23:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Hmmm ... don't know about bringing it to WikiProject standards though. I'll just point out that my edit summary in the move was meant to be a joke, and I promise not to cry abuse if someone decides it needs moving back :) [[User:ConMan|Confusing Manifestation]] 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
</div>
<br />
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
:''The following discussion is archived from [[Template talk:Uw-spamublock]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
== Graphic ==
How come we're using the old style stop sign graphic on this one? '''[[User:Mr Senseless|Mister Senseless]]™''' ([[User_talk:Mr Senseless|Speak]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mr_Senseless|Contributions]]) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
::Never mind, boldly fixed it. '''[[User:Mr Senseless|Mister Senseless]]™''' ([[User_talk:Mr Senseless|Speak]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mr_Senseless|Contributions]]) 09:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
</div>
<br />
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
:''The following discussion is archived from [[Template talk:Uw-ublock]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
== General template? ==
It says that this is a general template, however, I don't think there is a more specific template for this than this one, is there? In any case, there are no more specific templates on the page that the message points to. --[[User:JoanneB|Joanne]][[User talk:JoanneB|B]] 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
== Non-latin characters? ==
This seems like a borderline guideline for usernames, and inappropriate as a reason for blocking someone or as a potential reason given in this message. Can we remove that section? If it suggests anywhere that having non-latin chars is a reason for blocking a username, we should change that. [[User:Sj|+sj ]][[User Talk:Sj|+]] 04:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:Why should characters like ∠ or ♣ be permitted in usernames? Usernames must consist of characters that may be typed on an English keyboard or, in allowance of multi-wiki users or single-user login, on ''some'' keyboard. Someone should not need to copy and paste a username or find a Unicode character reference to refer to a user. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']] • 07:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:: See the [[WP:U|Username policy]], which states the following. If you wish to remove the clause, you should discuss on the [[WT:U|policy talk page]] instead. <blockquote>'''Names with non-[[Latin alphabet|Latin]] characters:''' Unfortunately, most of your fellow editors will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts. Many of them will also be additionally burdened, as such names may be displayed for them only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or worse, nonsense or [[mojibake]] ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is usually written in a non-Latin script, please consider [[Transliteration|transliterating]] it to avoid confusion, and allow easier access to your talk page by typing your name in the search field or URL bar.</blockquote> —[<small>[[WP:ADMIN|admin]]</small>] [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] <small>17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)</small>
::: This is an advice, and I have just deprecated it on that page. This might only be appropriate for new usernames made specifically for editing on en.wikipedia.
:::Note that people who have accounts on multiple wikimedia projects might have a non-latin username from that other project. These people will often have a proven track-record, and should not be blocked.
::: Once (when.. in some forseeable future) single user login is implemented, en.wikipedia will allow a huge number of non-latin-character usernames to log in, whether you want to or not. Unilaterally blocking people from other wikis is definately not going to be the answer!
::: Blocking people from other wikis is *simply not fair*. What if wikis in other character sets started blocking latin1 people? That would be stupid. Who can do transwiki and translation work (VERY IMPORTANT!) after that?
::: Please discuss as per [[WP:BRD]].
::: [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
== Username block ==
Following a discussion over at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village%20pump%20%28policy%29&oldid=90806817#Acceptable_username_policy Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Acceptable username policy] I took a look at the template used for blocking new users whose names are inappropriate (too similar to another user's name, contain improper characters, etc) and it seemed to me that the current template is pretty harsh, and may scare well-meaning new users away. So, I tried to put myself in the shoes of a new user (not so tough, as in many ways I still am one) and redesigned the template to address this issue. My proposed template, along with a copy of the original template, can be seen at [[User:Badger151/templates]]. Please stop by and leave your thoughts on that page's talk page. Thanks --[[User:Badger151|Badger151]] 23:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
: Although the message could be more cordial, your proposal is ''far'' too soft (particularly the emoticon). I've softened the wording to a lesser degree at [[User:Pathoschild/Sandbox2]]. What do you think of that one? —[<small>[[WP:ADMIN|admin]]</small>] [[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] <small>02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)</small>
::I placed a link to your template over at [[User talk:Badger151/templates]], since a few comments had also come in there. --[[User:Badger151|Badger151]] 02:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
== Edit to template ==
Could an admin add {{tl|TestTemplatesNotice}} to the template (obviously in a <noinclude> section)? Several other templates on {{tl|TestTemplates}} have them, and it'd be nice to have this sort of standardized. [[User:EVula|EVula]] 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:It has been my pleasure to fulfill your request. Let me know if I need anything else... er, whatever. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">☯</span>]] //</span> 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
== Steel's changes ==
I like them. The red octagon was too harsh, this is better. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 16:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
== Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template ==
What isn't documented at {{tl|usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected), is that the template takes an optional parameter. '''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>usernameblock|'''''reason for block'''''}}''', or even '''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>unb|'''''reason for block'''''}}''', will replace the rest of the sentence following "'''blocked indefinitely''' because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
''If you enter:'' <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}}<br />''you get:''
:[[Image:Information icon.svg|left|50px]]Your username has been '''blocked indefinitely''' because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocking]] and [[Wikipedia:Username|username]] policies for more information).
::::''(and the rest of the template stays the same)''
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at [[WP:RFCN]] over "<u>Why</u> was this name blocked?" -- [[User:Benedict the Moor|Ben]] 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
=== Adding link to WP:RFCN archive ===
If the username was blocked following a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names]], you may wish to link to the archive of that discussion, for instance:
:<nowiki>{{unb|1="1337 H4XZ0R" falls under [[WP:USERNAME#Trouble|"usernames that... give the impression that you intend to cause trouble here, such as by alluding to hacking"]], and was disallowed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:RFCN&oldid=119514027#1337_H4XZ0R_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 a discussion at WP:RFCN]}}</nowiki>
Notice in the above that, since the URL includes equal signs, you need to declare the parameter explicitly with "'''1='''". -- [[User:Ben|<span title="Formerly ''Benedict the Moor''">'''''Ben'''''</span>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Ben|'''TALK''']]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ben|'''HIST''']]</sub></small> 19:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
== Shortcuts for RFC-related templates ==
[[User:Khukri|Khukri]] of the user-warnings project had suggested:''"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase."'' Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding '''{{tl|UsernameBlocked}}''' already had shortcut {{tl|unb}}, I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since {{tl|ucr}} and {{tl|unc}} were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:
{{RFCtemplate}}
That should save a bit of typing time. -- [[User:Benedict the Moor|Ben]] 09:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
== Requested edit ==
{{tl|editprotected}}
This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{[[Template:protected template|protected template]]}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – [[User:Qxz|Qxz]] 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
:Done! [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Neil</span>]] [[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none"><small>(not Proto ►)</small></span>]] 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
== Edit Request ==
{{tl|editprotected}}
I am requesting that a minor change be made to this template of changing where it says [[Wikipedia:Username]] to [[Wikipedia:Username policy]], because it's been redirected to that, and it may confuse some editors to leave it the way it is.--[[User:{{{User|Wikipedier}}}|{{{User|Wikipedier}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|Wikipedier}}}|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/{{{User|Wikipedier}}}|contribs]]) 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that redirect errors like that, spelling mistakes, capitalization errors, etc. are haven't been looked to be a big deal at Wikipedia, so I understand on the other hand if the request is declinded. I still thought it could possibly be helpful as far as minor edits go to consider it.--[[User:{{{User|Wikipedier}}}|{{{User|Wikipedier}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|Wikipedier}}}|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/{{{User|Wikipedier}}}|contribs]]) 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{Done}} [[User:Cbrown1023|<b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b>]] [[User talk:Cbrown1023|<b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b>]] 21:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
== Another edit request ==
{{tl|editprotected}}
I read the above comments and one of the things that has not been documented in the template directions is that you can use "<nowiki>{{usernameblock|reason for block}}</nowiki>" to ''specify'' a specific reason why the name was blocked. This should be added. - [[User:Hdt83|<span style="color:#336600;"><b>Hdt83</b></span>]] | [[User talk:Hdt83|<span style="color:blue;">Talk</span>]] 20:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{not done}} There is no good place to put that and most administrators know or can figure it out already. (and most administrator's wouldn't fill that paramater out even if they knew it was there) [[User:Cbrown1023|<b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b>]] [[User talk:Cbrown1023|<b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b>]] 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
== Edit request from {{user|Tellyaddict}} ==
{{tl|editprotected}}
I would like to change it so it says '''Your account has been blocked indefinitely as a result of your inappropriate username''' instead of '''Your username has been blocked indefinitely''' as the actual account is blocked and not just the username, this to avoid confusion.<b>[[User:Tellyaddict|<span style="color:#FF4040;">Te</span><span style="color:#FF9900;">ll</span><span style="color:#FFEE00;">y</span>]][[User talk:Tellyaddict|<span style="color:#FFEE00;">a</span><span style="color:#FF9900;">ddi</span><span style="color:#FF4040;">ct</span>]]</b> 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, the text seems to confuse "username" with "account". It would be simpler if it just used the word "username" everywhere (because there is no account apart from the associated username). But I rephrased it just a little to make the first sentence match the rest of the text. [[User:CMummert|CMummert]] · <small>[[User talk:CMummert|talk]]</small> 11:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
== "Blocked Indefinitely" ==
{{tl|editprotected} The words "Blocked indefinitely" in the UsernameBlocked template should be bold faced again
:Done. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 03:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
== Requested edit ==
{{tl|editprotected}}
Please revert the boldface on 'blocked indefinitely' per [[WP:BITE]], as it may scare newcomers off. Thanks. '''[[User:M!|<span style="color:#999999">Cheers,</span>]] [[User_talk:M!|<span style="color:#555555">Mystytopia</span>]]''' 00:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think that's biting, but just bolding the main information of the template, which can be useful to locate it on a sometimes non-empty talkpage. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|<sup style="color:darkblue;">talk</sup>]] 02:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:I agree with Lucasbfr - the bold makes it easy to get the point quickly while scanning the page. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Block for "Wikipedia" ==
{{tl|editprotected}}
The prohibition on "Wikipedia" no longer appears in [[WP:U]]. It now reads, "... Usernames that confusingly refer to a Wikipedia process, namespace, or toolbar item."
Wording should be changed to reflect this: '''Change:''' "...contains the word Wikipedia or the name of any other Wikimedia Foundation project..." '''to:''' "... refers to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace...". Just a suggestion. [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]] [[User talk:Flyguy649|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|<sub>contribs</sub>]] 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]'''Done'''. -[[User:My/sig|<span style="color:black;">Mysekurity</span>]] 11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
== semi protected ==
This template is no longer fully protected, since all the other UW templates are semi protected. I am not sure whether or not many people watch this page, but if you want information about the [[WP:UW]] templates, '''please leave a note at [[WT:UW]]'''. Thanks! -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|<sup style="color:darkblue;">talk</sup>]] 12:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
== Category ==
When used on a user talk page (surely the most common form of usage) this page puts the page into {{cl|Temporary Wikipedian userpages}} which in turn suggests that the page be deleted. This seems like a poor idea to me, part of the reason for such a msg is to form a lasting record of the blockage and its reason. Why is this category used, and would anyone object to removing it from this template? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:I repeat my request for objections before removing the category from the template. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
::Hell no, keep that one! Apparently these pages are deleted after a month, keep in mind that the block message is still viewable when the user tries to edit. That's an easy way to delete the (unused) talk pages of blocked users when they left. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|<sup style="color:darkblue;">talk</sup>]] 15:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
== Color ==
I really don't like the new color/layout of the template. This one isn't a "get lost" template ... it should be more informational, not have a scare color. This template is for someone who made a disallowed username in good faith - we don't want a big yellow get lost message on the page. Would anyone have any severe heartburn with changing it back? It really does look hideous. --[[User:B|<span style="color:maroon;">B</span>]] 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:Note that it is also routinely used for people who created an improper username in apparent bad-faith. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:If I'm correct, without the color the templates appears with a pink background in the "You're blocked" interface, not the best either. The orange is just the same color than the other uw-block templates, and the div class can be used if you tweak your monobook. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|<sup style="color:darkblue;">talk</sup>]] 14:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
== Proposed changes ==
This is the current design:
<div class="user-block">[[Image:Information icon.svg|left|50px]]Your account ''with this username'' has been blocked indefinitely because {{{reason|{{{1|the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate}}}}}} (see our [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocking]] and [[Wikipedia:Username policy|username]] policies for more information).
'''You are encouraged to <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Userlogin|type=signup}} create a new account]</span> and contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username.''' [[Wikipedia:Username policy]] provides guidance on selecting your username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account.
Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your [[IP address]] may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible.
* '''If you want to keep the contributions''' from your old account for your new username, please follow these directions:
# Add <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock-un|''your new username here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk=below.|on [[Special:MyTalk|your user talk page]].}} This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
# At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked.
# You will have 24 hours after the unblock to file a request on [[Wikipedia:Changing username]] before you may be re-blocked. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. For more information, please visit '''[[Wikipedia:Changing username]]'''. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is much easier to '''<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Userlogin|type=signup}} create a new account]</span>'''.
* '''If you believe this block is unjustified''', you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk=below|on [[Special:MyTalk|your user talk page]]}} or emailing the administrator who blocked you.
{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|<includeonly>
:~~</includeonly>~~}}</div>
but I feel it should be like this:
[[Image:Information icon.svg|left|50px]]Your account '''with this username''' has been <span style="color:red;">'''blocked indefinitely'''</span> because {{{reason|{{{1|the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate}}}}}} (please see our [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocking]] and [[Wikipedia:Username policy|username]] policies for more information).
'''You are encouraged to <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Userlogin|type=signup}} create a new account]</span> and contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username.''' [[Wikipedia:Username policy]] provides guidance on selecting your username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account.
Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your [[IP address]] may be [[Wikipedia:Autoblock|temporarily blocked]]. Unless you have also been engaging in [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible.
* '''If you want to keep the contributions''' from your old account for your new username, please follow these directions:
# Add <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock-un|''your new username here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk=below.|on [[Special:MyTalk|your user talk page]].}} This is possible because even when you are blocked, you still have the ability to edit your own talk page.
# At an [[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrator's]] discretion, you may be unblocked.
# You will have 24 hours after the unblock to file a request on [[Wikipedia:Changing username]] before you may be re-blocked. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. For more information, please visit '''[[Wikipedia:Changing username]]'''. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is much easier to '''<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Userlogin|type=signup}} create a new account]</span>'''.
* '''If you believe this block is unjustified''', you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk=below|on [[Special:MyTalk|your user talk page]]}} or emailing the administrator who blocked you.
{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|<includeonly>
:~~</includeonly>~~}}
I have made some small changes to the template above here - before I change this high-use template, I would like to gain consensus first.
I'm not sure the border looks right for this template: it may do so for others, but for this one, it looks ugly.
Feel free to discuss the above changes I've proposed. <s>--[[User:SunStar Net|<b style="color:red;">SunStar Net</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:SunStar Net|<i style="color:blue;">talk</i>]]</sup> 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)</s> --[[User:SunStar Net|<b style="color:red;">SunStar Net</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:SunStar Net|<i style="color:blue;">talk</i>]]</sup> 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
== Update to wording ==
I've updated the wording, which was unnecessarily lengthy, and a bit BITEy. The main audience for this message is especially, users who have never edited before, or are creating new accounts, so it matters above average not to deter or even accidentally, BITE. [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
</div>
<br />
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
:''The following discussion is archived from [[Template talk:Uw-uhblock]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
== Requested edit ==
<s><nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki></s>
Please change 'Your account has been blocked indefinitely' to 'Your username has been blocked indefinitely'. Thanks. '''[[User:M!|<span style="color:#999999">Cheers,</span>]] [[User_talk:M!|<span style="color:#555555">Mystytopia</span>]]''' 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:Hmm, I'm unsure - such blocks are "hard blocks" so really we are blocking the account as opposed to {{tl|usernameblocked}} [[User:GDonato|GDonato]] ('''[[User talk:GDonato|talk]]''') 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::I have removed the edit protected request for now. (Please readd it if there is a consensus on this issue.) I think the wording is better as it is, though I have no strong opinions either way. The most important thing, in my view, is that this template not promise to unblock the user if they say they want to change their name or anything like that - this template is for users who are making obviously trolling names and should never be used for someone who is acting in good faith. --[[User:BigDT|<span style="color:maroon;">Big</span><span style="color:orange;">ΔT</span>]] 19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::I agree that the wording is better as it is. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 19:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Is this needed? ==
I'd like to suggest consideration for removing this template, but I'd like to chat about it here before taking to TfD. A username block should be just that, a username block. Blocking a person because of an inappropriate username (no matter how trollish) goes against the grain of Wikipedia, nowhere else do we essentially BAN people from the project for a single poor decision. Just because someone makes an extraordinarily bad username doesn't mean they're going to be a troll or disruptor, plenty of folks make outrageous names or statements casually without intention to disrupt, and we are not equipped with crystal balls. Thoughts? - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY</small>]] ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
*A name such as [[User:ChairboyIsGay]] does deserve immediate blocking as 9/10 times it's a sockpuppet and it seriously violates [[WP:NPA]], that is the scope of the template and it's use is (or should be) limited to that. [[User:GDonato|GDonato]] ('''[[User talk:GDonato|talk]]''') 16:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
**To clarify, I'm not talking about username blocking in general, it's the hard blocking that I object to (Account creation disabled, autoblock enabled, etc). - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY</small>]] ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
***If a new user with a nice inoffensive name like Mary Jones (I haven't checked to see if there is such a user) immediately begins to post your real name and phone number all over Wikipedia, we block Mary Jones with account creation disabled. If someone registers an account called [[User:Chairboy's real name is X and his phone number is 1234567]], we also block with account creation disabled. Really offensive usernames are not made by people who are going to want to make useful edits tomorrow. And if the usernames are deliberate, stalkerish privacy violations, then the editor is certainly not a newcomer who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia. In any case, as far as I know, blocking the IP does not mean that the user can never create a new account — just that they have to wait a few days. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
****A note, my IP address stays the same for months at a time, and it's a dynamic IP, so the penalty we're talking about here can be pretty dang big for the transgression, and for many users amounts to a lifetime ban from Wikipedia. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY</small>]] ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There are times when hardblocking based on usernames in necessary and appropriate. We're talking usernames that make it clear in themselves that the user is her to cause trouble. I would give the following as appropriate cases for immediate username hardblocks:
* Usernames involving racism or other hate speech
**[[User:Faggot Killer 88 卍卐 卍卐]]
**[[User:KillAllNiggers]]
**[[User:Niggers stink like shit]]
* Usernames attacking other users/administrators
**[[User:F*ckalladminsintheass]]
**[[User:Misza13 is a fuckhead crony]]
* Usernames advocating outrageous POV e.g. the support of terrorism
**[[User:Semtex set Ireland free]]
**[[User:Jews are responsible for all wars in the world.]]
* Usernames involving strong profanity
**[[User:Cuntbitchfuck]]
**[[User:Fuck Nigga Pussy Cock Sex Gangbang Anal Terrorism]]
Username hardblocks should be used sparingly but are sometimes necessary. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 17:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:Those are all good username blocks, but a lifetime ban from the project is pretty heavy medicine, and there's the assumption that these people can never ever contribute constructively to the project. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY</small>]] ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
::How is it a lifetime ban? Autoblocks wear off after 2 days... <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Does 'Account Creation Blocked' wear off in two days as well? - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY</small>]] ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 17:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, I believe it does - we can't indefintely prevent the creation of accounts from a given IP without blocking the IP itself... <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, both wear off after a couple days. [[User:Until(1 == 2)|<span style="color:maroon;">Until</span>]][[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|<span style="color:black;">(<span style="color:blue;">1 <span style="color:maroon;">==</span> 2</span>)</span>]] 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The original reason I created this template is that we need something that doesn't invite the user to create a new account. If someone is repeatedly creating accounts attacking random admins, using {{tl|unb}} as the block message doesn't make sense. --[[User:B|<span style="color:maroon;">B</span>]] 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
:I would say it is serving its purpose well. [[User:Until(1 == 2)|<span style="color:maroon;">Until</span>]][[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|<span style="color:black;">(<span style="color:blue;">1 <span style="color:maroon;">==</span> 2</span>)</span>]] 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
</div>
<br />
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
:''The following discussion is archived from [[Template talk:Uw-voablock]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
== Unpropper ==
I don't think the text ''further action may be taken against you.'' to be proper in this context. As we all knwon, threads only encourage vandals. [[User:Marianocecowski|Mariano]]<small>([[User talk:Marianocecowski|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Marianocecowski|c]])</small> 08:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the text
<blockquote>Please do not create further accounts for the purpose of vandalism; if you do so, further action may be taken against you.</blockquote>
because it basically amounts to [[WP:BEANS]] - that is, we're telling them that if they want to vandalise further, they just have to create another account. "Further action may be taken against you" is an obviously hollow threat. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
== Edit to template ==
Could an admin add {{tl|TestTemplatesNotice}} to the template (obviously in a <noinclude> section)? Test0-Test2 have them, and it'd be nice to have this sort of standardized (though this is a lot less of an issue for admin-only templates, as they probably know to subst it). [[User:EVula|EVula]] 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:I've unprotected the template, go ahead and make your edits. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 20:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::Fantastic, danke. [[User:EVula|EVula]] 00:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
== Use after one edit ==
This template has been used, in a number of cases, after a single edit. Granted, in those cases the edit in question was obvious vandalism on an article that receives a great deal of vandal attention. However, the text of the template implies a decision has been reached, based on a pattern of activity. When used on the talk page of a user who has only ever edited Wikipedia once it doesn't make a lot of sense. Either a new template should be used in such cases, or the language in this template should be changed. Example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIamjammin1234&diff=122050433&oldid=122049043] -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
== Template restored after change ==
A change was made to this template on 17 Dec, without discussion. I only discovered this after using the template for blocking of a vandalism-only account. When it rendered after subst, it did not say provide the words that I expected, nor completely give the editor the reason for the block. "Vandalism only" is a slightly different reason than "persistent vandalism"; and in fact, in the blocking page, "vandalism" and "vandalism-only" are separate choices in the drop down reason. For that reason, I'm restoring it to the previous version. Please discuss any changes here as this change potential affects many admins. — [[User:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|{{{User|ERcheck}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|ERcheck}}}|talk]]) 13:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:Ow, to be honest I didn't think the wording would be an issue. [[WP:BRD|I don't think it is such a good idea]] to have so many templates, but I don't feel strongly about it :). -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|<sup style="color:darkblue;">talk</sup>]] 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
</div>
== Level 4 warnings ==
The level 4 warnings all seem to state that the next incidence of vandalism or other disruption will result in a block. I was wondering whether non-admins are allowed to use these templates since non-admins do not actually have the ability to block even if they see more disruptive editing. --[[User:Hydraton31|Hydraton31]] ([[User talk:Hydraton31|talk]]) 21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:Absolutely. The idea is to give the level four warning then take the matter to [[WP:AIV]] if vandalism continues. Just be sure you are using the warning for obvious vandalism, or they won't get blocked and you lose a little credibility.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, I will remember this whenever I have the chance to go on recent changes patrol (hopefully a bit more next month!). --[[User:Hydraton31|Hydraton31]] ([[User talk:Hydraton31|talk]]) 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
| |||