Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 7: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. |
Replacing X_(1).png with File:System_Error_Icon_(Red_'X').png (by CommonsDelinker because: File renamed: Criterion 2 (meaningless or ambiguous name)). |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 13 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 6|← Archive 6]]</span> |<!--
--><span> '''Archive 7''' </span><!--
-->| <span>[[../Archive 8|Archive 8 →]]</span>
</div>
== {{tl|uw-copyright1}} --> {{tl|Cv}} ? ==
I just saw that the uw-copyright series was deleted and redirected to {{tl|cv}}. Did I miss something? I have mixed feelings about having a single issue template here. It is a bit harsh for newcommers in my opinion, they don't know they are doing something wrong. (Sorry if I bring a point that has already been discussed, I couldn't find it in the archives :)) -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
:There are two templates, {{tl|Nothanks}} (or {{tl|Nothanks-sd}}) and {{tl|Cv}}, which were listed here before. More than that however, is inappropriate. If someone continues to upload copyrighted material after two warnings (really after one), they cannot be allowed to continue to do so and it cannot be built into the official sort of system created here that they be given five opportunities, with a warning after each one, to commit illegal actions on Wikipedia. I have now redirected {{tl|uw-copyright1}} to {{tl|Nothanks}} instead; it also happens to be much more explanatory and helpful than the new {{tl|uw-copyright1}} which was apparently invented without any reference to already existing templates. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']] • 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
::I thought a bit about it, I will try to make a 2 levels templates, level 1 being AGF (a mix between the previous lv1 and nothanks) and level 4 being basically {{tl|Cv}}. What do you think? -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
:::I ripped of the 2 old templates. Here's the [[User:Lucasbfr/uw|result]]. I propose to use the first one for level 1 and the second one will be level 4. levels 2 and 3 would redirect to level 4. What do you think? -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
:::: I changed my mind (I hated the idea of having a 2 lv template) and went bold, recreating a single issue {{tl|uw-copyright}} that I hope will please everyone. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
Would it be possible to squeeze mention of "not linking to copyright violations either" into one of these templates, or to create a new singlelevel one for such purpose? Thanks :) --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 19:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:Personally, I would type a personal message to the user in question, or use the spam templates if the linking is clearly inappropriate, but some people might find such a template useful? -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
== Template signature error ==
Line 18 ⟶ 27:
<code><nowiki><font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">[[User:James086|]]</font><sup>[[User talk:James086|<font color="#006400">Talk</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/James086|<font color="#700000">Email</font>]]</sup></nowiki></code>
Yes, you could have read it from the edit box but it would be mixed with everything else then. Thanks, [[User:James086|<
:The source of the problem is the vertical bar.
Line 24 ⟶ 33:
<sup>[[User talk:James086|<font color="#006400">Talk</font>]]</nowiki><span style=background:lightblue>|</span>
<nowiki>[[Special:Emailuser/James086|<font color="#700000">Email</font>]]</sup></nowiki>
:It causes an "ifelse" statement to become screwed up. Replacing the "|" with either "&#124;" or "<nowiki>{{!}}</nowiki>" will fix the problem. [[User:Gracenotes|<
::It works now, thanks a lot. [[User:James086|<
:::No problem! [[User:Gracenotes|<
== Foreign language user warning template ==
Line 33 ⟶ 42:
I made a new warning template {{tl|uselanguage}} to tag user talk pages. It has one parameter that is the language code. It will ideally give a warning in the language of the user, but will work with all language codes pointing to the correct WP. It is similar to the family of the contrib-xx1 templates, but can easily be expanded. [[User:AndreasJS|<span style="color:white;background:blue;"> Andreas </span>]] <sup><font size="-2">[[User talk:AndreasJS|(T)]]</font></sup> 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
:Wow. This is great! We should probably add uw- to the beginning and have this take the place of uw-english. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>[[User:TeckWiz/@|@]] </sub></small> 02:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
::When it is substituted, however, it will result in a mess of superfluous code, although appear fine. I suggest that we clean it up by ''requiring'' substitution, or else give an error message. [[User:Gracenotes|<
:::I would suggest to deprecate and bot-replace [[template:UE]] and maybe also those like [[template:contrib-fr1]]. [[User:AndreasJS|<span style="color:white;background:blue;"> Andreas </span>]] <sup><font size="-2">[[User talk:AndreasJS|(T)]]</font></sup> 17:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 48 ⟶ 57:
:What do you mean? <math>\sim</math> [[User:Lenoxus|Lenoxus]] [[User talk:Lenoxus|" * "]] 16:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
::A single template, as opposed to an escalating series of templates. [[User:Natalie Erin|Natalie]] 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I think if they continue to do it the standard vandalism or test templates would suffice.
::Yeah, after someone's gotten this warning and continues doing it, that would make sense. In answer to your question: Yes, it is certainly one-shot (at first I thought maybe you meant that I only intended to use it once, which wouldn't make sense). However, something like this should still be used for this specific issue the ''first'' time it is recognized, but if they continue to disregard this rule, a new level has obviously been reached. <math>\sim</math> [[User:Lenoxus|Lenoxus]] [[User talk:Lenoxus|" * "]] 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:::What about a user who never signs their posts and refuses to? I got into this with [[User:Wrestlinglover420]]. He never signs his posts on talk pages and basically told me he's not gonna if he doesn't want to. [[User:TJ Spyke|TJ Spyke]] 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 67 ⟶ 76:
Currently, most user warnings in this project make use of <code><nowiki>{{{subst|}}}</nowiki></code> with an optional <code><nowiki>|subst=subst:}}</nowiki></code> parameter that simplifies the output of the template when placed on a user talk page. However, this extra parameter is often excluded, and when used, requires some extra typing and doesn't work without an article parameter due to a bug. Perhaps we could use the much easier <code><nowiki><includeonly>subst:</includeonly></nowiki></code> trick to simplify the output? The <code><nowiki>includeonly</nowiki></code> trick uses no additional parameters, is used automatically every time, and also avoids the bug, allowing it to be used even without an article parameter. I think we should switch all the user warnings under this project to use this format, but I'd like to see if people support this first, since it would affect so many templates. [[User:Pyrospirit|<font color="green">Pyrospirit</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Pyrospirit|<font color="red">Flames</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Pyrospirit|<font color="orange">Fire</font>]]</sup> 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:As much as I'd love to implement this, there is no way that ''everyone'' is going to subst user messages (I know, believe me), and if someone doesn't subst a message in the above format, then it will result is a sticky mess of code that will undoubtedly confuse an vandal, or cause said vandal to laugh at Wikipedia's unintentional bad coding, etc. [[User:Gracenotes|<
::Oh, so it won't work if you don't subst, then? In that case, it would remind them to subst the message when they see the messed up code, so it'll serve two purposes! [[User:Pyrospirit|<font color="green">Pyrospirit</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Pyrospirit|<font color="red">Flames</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Pyrospirit|<font color="orange">Fire</font>]]</sup> 02:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Well it would mean that people check the output of the template after putting it. And that's probably not going to happen this century :D That kind of warning is useful on db-reason and afd, because a badly formed speedy deletion or AfD is enough to have the request bumped, but on a user warning, it will just confuse the user receiving the warning even more. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
== Argument for welcome and anon ==
Line 86 ⟶ 95:
*It may not matter that external links "do not alter search engine rankings" because an external link in a Wikipedia article ''will'' drive more traffic to that external link! Wikipedia articles come up near the top of many searches, and people who read such an article will see the external links, and some fraction of those will click on those links.
I don't see the sentence as something that would sound convincing to a linkspammer. -[[User:Amatulic|Amatulic]] 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html Not exactly], Google and most search engines rank websites according to their popularity. Wikipedia being very popular, an outgoing link from there affected search results. The nofollow tag allows us to say that the link should be ignored. For the second statement, that's why we fight spam on WP ;). -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
== 4-im ==
Line 108 ⟶ 117:
== uw-biog redirects ==
Would anyone object to the creation of uw-blp1 - uw-blp4 as redirects to the uw-biog series? At least for me, BLP (as the policy abbrev) is much easier to remember.
:That seems fine. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>[[Special:Emailuser/TeckWiz|@]]</sub>(Lets go Yankees!)</small> 13:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:I think it's a good idea. I've finally adjusted to "biog", but I had the same urge to type blp as the warning name.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 13:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
{{done}}
== Template to say a user has been reported ==
Line 119 ⟶ 128:
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|[[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|30px]]<big>'''Reported to Admin'''</big>
You have been reported to admin due to your repeated [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. An administrator will review your edits and decide whether you should be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]. {{ #if: '''[[User:Asics|<span style="font-family:impact;"><span style="background:black;color:aqua">Asics </span></span>]]'''<small>[[User talk:Asics|<span style="background:black;color:aqua">talk </span>]]</small><sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Asics|<font color="Black">Editor review!
|}
<br /> Any advice on whether I should leave it in my userspace, or move it to a proper template so others can find and use it more easily? As at the moment you have to type in ''<nowiki>{{Subst:User:Asics/Reported|sig=~~~~}}</nowiki>'' in order to get it to work. Is there another one already made? (Knowing my luck there will be, and I will have wasted 10 minutes making it!) Thanks in advance for any advice, '''[[User:Asics|<span style="font-family:impact;"><span style="background:black;color:aqua">Asics </span></span>]]'''<small>[[User talk:Asics|<span style="background:black;color:aqua">talk </span>]]</small><sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Asics|<font color="Black">Editor review!
:[[Template:Fwarn|Fwarn]] isn't "uw-certified", but it's available. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>[[Special:Emailuser/TeckWiz|@]]</sub>(Lets go Yankees!)</small> 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
::[[Template:Non-admin fwarn|Fwarn]] is great, I wish it ''was'' "uw-certified." It's documentation needs help though. Not much, just a little. Okay, I'll do it. --[[User:Yksin|Yksin]] 22:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 181 ⟶ 190:
I don't know templates currently cite ATT instead of Verifiability, but they need to be changed back to Verifiability as ATT is not currently policy, but proposed policy. '''[[User:Miss Mondegreen|Miss Mondegreen]] | [[User talk:Miss Mondegreen|Talk]] 08:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)'''
:Are there any? If I am correct, they are all citing [[WP:V]]. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
::I just changed a set last night--I think the big thing is all of the non talk page templates which haven't all been changed back. I'm working on requesting those now. But I have no idea about the rest of these. I did the citing sources set last night but the others? '''[[User:Miss Mondegreen|Miss Mondegreen]] | [[User talk:Miss Mondegreen|Talk]] 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)'''
Line 188 ⟶ 197:
Unless I couldn't find it, we need a UWT assuming good faith to tell people to use the talk page rather than the article space for talk. To warn [[User talk:168.169.110.137]] I had to modify another template. --[[User:Arctic.gnome|Arctic Gnome]] <small>([[User talk:Arctic.gnome|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arctic.gnome|contribs]])</small> 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:{{tl|talkinarticle}} is good for this situation. We should probably go ahead and add it to the project.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 17:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
::What about {{tl|Uw-chat1}}? -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
:::Chat1 is currently geared to the situation where someone posts off-topic or inappropriate comments to an article talk page. Talkinarticle is designed for warning those who put talk comments in the actual article space. We could tweak Chat1 to cover the talk in article situation, but (although I generally think we are starting to get too many UWs) I think this is worth a specific one-off warning. I see this situation come up a fair bit, and Artic.gnome's question is at least the third time someone has asked about this template.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh, my bad, I misread :). -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
== {{t1|uw-vandalism-lgbt}} ==
Line 196 ⟶ 205:
We apparently have a new template for people vandalising pages with things like "[person] is gay". --<small>TeckWiz is now</small> [[User:R|'''R''']] <sup>[[User_talk:R|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/R|Contribs]]<sub>[[Special:Emailuser/R|@]]</sub>(Lets go Yankees!)</small> 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:I have no opinion on this template existence (even if personally I wouldn't use it, vandalism is vandalism. But we have {{tl|uw-racism}}, so...), but this template is a copy paste of {{tl|uw-v3}}. It could be replaced by
{{
to keep it consistent with the uw-v3 formatting. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
::(edit conflict - I have pretty much the same reaction as Lucas) I know there are folks who do LGBT RC patrol, and I personally don't begrudge them a specific warning template. However, I don't think we should add this to the main UTM page. We already have {{tl|uw-racism}} and I think you could make an argument for a specific template for every way in which a comment can be offensive - race, sexual preference, religion, national origin etc. Personally, I think the vandalism warnings are adequate for addressing these situations. However, if people want something more specific, I suggest we create one warning, perhaps {{tl|uw-offensive}}, that warns people not to make offensive comments regarding race, sexual preference or religion.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
For anyone interested (and who may not have both pages on their watch list), there's a new proposal on this topic at [[WT:UW#Proposal for new Incivility Template]]--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 17:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 215 ⟶ 224:
:Was it your intention for the image links above to go to the [[IM]] dab page? --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
::The only problem with that icon is that it isn't protected and it is on Commons. That means that if someone on commons replaces the icon with something else everything here would also be affected. The other thing I don't like which is more minor but still an annoyance is that the icon doesn't seem to match the nuvola or modern look now being used in the uw-template series. -- [[User:Hdt83|<sub><font color="336611" ><b>Hdt83</b></font></sub>]] [[User talk:Hdt83|<sup><font color="blue" face="Arial"><b>Chat</b></font></sup>]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:I fixed your wikilinks, Khukri. I agree that there is a look'n feel problem with the new image. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
[[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|75px|left]]
:::I updated the images with the one on the left for all the temp. blocks so the X now matches. -- [[User:Hdt83|<sub><font color="336611" ><b>Hdt83</b></font></sub>]] [[User talk:Hdt83|<sup><font color="blue" face="Arial"><b>Chat</b></font></sup>]] 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 229 ⟶ 238:
This would be a pretty big change, so I ask for comments, objections or suggestions. For all I know, it could just be me that doesn't particularly like the current V1.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::As level 1 warnings assume good faith, we should emphasize "''considered'' unhelpful and unconstructive" in V1. If we are assuming good faith, we must assume they had good intentions but are unaware of policy.
:::Good point. How about, "..., but please do not make edits that are considered unhelpful or unconstructive, as you did to ''Article''."? --<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 239 ⟶ 248:
::Notwithstanding Fut.Perf's comment, given discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=125792881#The_understanding_of_.22abuse.22_and_admin_misbehavior WP:AN], I have made changes to WP:WARN and surrounding materials to fix the problems that led to this situation. To begin with, because abuse and vandalism are clearly separate concepts and because {{tl|Uw-longterm}} clearly addresses the latter, I have relabeled it here at WP:WARN to reflect its actual purpose. I have also created a new template, {{tl|Uw-longtermabuse}}, to fill the gap left by relabelling {{tl|Uw-longterm}}. Lastly, I have proposed a new policy, [[Wikipedia:Abuse]] that I hope will be used to arrive at a community consensus of what "abuse" means as WP:WARN and other policies comprehend that term.[[User:Simon Dodd|Simon Dodd]] 13:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::The template was listed for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 25]]. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
::::And in further demonstration of Fut.Perf's bad faith in so doing, he made no note of that here or on my talk page. A true class act.[[User:Simon Dodd|Simon Dodd]] 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 288 ⟶ 297:
Is there any particular reason why the uw-vandalism templates are formatted as HTML tables? The formatting causes the signature to move down a line or two, which makes things rather awkward. For example:
<!-- Note: Template intentionally transcluded to allow for easy removal and automatic updating when and if fixed. Please do not substitute. -->
:I'm not a technical guy, but I think it's a result of [[WT:UW#Numbered list in layout not working|this conversation]].--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
::Ok. It looks as though the template has been fixed anyway, and that discussion makes it sound as though I wasn't the only one having this problem. Thanks. ''[[User:Hersfold|Hersfold]]'' <sup>([[User_Talk:Hersfold|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|work]])</sup> 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:::A discussion is going on at [[WT:UW#Numbered_list_in_layout_not_working]] on whether use tables or not, both camps have good arguments (numbered lists are broken at the moment). You might want to drop by. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
== Apologies ==
Line 324 ⟶ 333:
:That's [[User:Gracenotes|Gracenote's]] baby, I'll leave a message on his talk. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 10:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::Looking at the code, it is supposed to do so (and I think it did at some point). There must be a glitch somewhere... -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
::I got it working, but as lucasbfr said, it was technically ''supposed to'' work as it was... [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]</sup> § 15:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::I'll look into a bit more, anyway. And do we want "uw-vandalism" or "uw-v" as the default escalation series? Hm... it seems like lucas took basically the same approach that I did. [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]</sup> § 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 359 ⟶ 368:
== {{[[Template:Notasocialnetwork|Notasocialnetwork]]}} ==
I recently created the above template. Improvements to it from those with more experience of managing user warning templates are most welcome. Additional templates for more severe warnings would be even better. Thanks.
:It ''could'' certainly be incorporated into the uw-chat series, but as one off templates go the idea is sound. I would maybe suggest moving it to {{tl|uw-notsocial}}, as per all uw warnings, change the icon over to the standard info. Then change the first argument to become the name of the offending article or talk page, and at the thank you add the following;
Line 431 ⟶ 440:
I have testetd both templates in my user space before moving them to template space. i expect that they will be most useful to people patroling [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]. I hope people find them useful. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:Both probably need to be harmonized with the [[WP:UW]] look and feel and naming convention. As a side note, we might want to organize the single templates an other way, the table is growing a lot. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
:I agree with Lucas but would you mind if I remved them until they get the UW treatment? you might want to also look here [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings|here]] we've got ideas to standardise all the sp templates as well as some other areas. I'll wait a little while, but I'll most probably take them down this evening till they become standardised. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 446 ⟶ 455:
Is there a warning for users who use warnings maliciously? I warned a user who had made some *ahem* non-constructive edits, and he replied to me with a blatant vandal template. --'''[[User:LuigiManiac|<span style="color:#32CD32">Luigi</span>]][[User Talk:LuigiManiac|<span style="color:green">Maniac</span>]]''' 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:Not really, but you should probably remove the warning, and either re warn him for vandalism or type a personalized message :) -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
::Thank you. I warned him with a custom message, and removed the warning from my talk page. --'''[[User:LuigiManiac|<span style="color:#32CD32">Luigi</span>]][[User Talk:LuigiManiac|<span style="color:green">Maniac</span>]]''' 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 475 ⟶ 484:
==== Warning? ====
I'm not entirely happy having this template classed as a "user warning" template. I created it as a way to give feedback to users who made unsuccessful reports to AIV in good faith without knowing for technical reasons that they would not be actionable. It was there as a partner to {{tlx|AIV-thanks}} (which I haven't created yet!) to feedback successful AIV reports.
I think its good to bring it into line with the user template rationalisation programme but I don't think it really sits well alongside templates like {{tlx|uw-v1}}. Could it be reclassified somehow? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]]([[User talk:AndrewRT|Talk]]) 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Mm. The "uw-" prefix applies to user messages in general, although I can see why you're hung up about it. This template is ''not'' a warning template, nor was it ever consciously classified as such. It's actually a notice. Believe me, {{tl|uw-thankyou}} is in no way a warning, but under harmonization and such, it was created to begin with "uw-". I hope that this isn't rather inconvenient. [[User:Gracenotes|<
===uw-autobiography===
Line 572 ⟶ 581:
Rationale: Some editors (mistakenly in my view) believe that any time a test edit is self-reverted then uw-test2 should be used (because it mentions self-reversion) even if the experimenter has no level-1 warnings. I think this is misguided, as self-reverting a test is a lesser "sin" that testing and not self-reverting. The misguidance is coming from the lack of self-reversion being mentioned here at uw-test1. — <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span> [[[User_talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|contrib]]]</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:Then again, there's {{tl|uw-selfrevert}} [[User:Gracenotes|<
::What templates are to be used when the experimenter:
::# has multiple incidents of self-reverts?
Line 621 ⟶ 630:
::I agree with Khukri. A significant number of people stop vandalizing after they get the first warning, so I think the first warning should be relatively gentle (unless the vandalism was truly offensive). Also, a change of this signficance should probably be proposed at [[WT:UTM]].--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::This was really discussed at [[WP:V]]? Perhaps you mean [[WP:VAN]]? Either way, I always felt that having a first-level vandalism warning dovetailed nicely with both [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:BITE]]. Speaking from personal experience, I have observed many occasions where individuals have stopped after just the first warning, and it is not like having only three levels of vandalism is going to speed up our ability to have vandals blocked (especially since [[WP:AIV]] no longer requires a full set of warnings). --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 00:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Personally, I don't think all warnings need to be used in a 1, 2, 3, 4 sequence. I often do 1, 3, 4 or 2, 3, 4 depending on what the vandalism is and who the user is. I mean that putting {{tl|uw-v1}} on a previous offender is pointless. The "grid" is not a tool made to escalation 1 step at a time : lv1 assumes good faith, lv2 is factual, lv3 assumes bad faith. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
:::::While this discussion is here, until I move them all over to [[WP:UTM]] this evening, I'll respond. I couldn't agree more. I would sequence normally 1, 3, 4 for a first time editor and 2, 3, 4, for an infrequent vandal or returning vandal, and for a vandalism hotbed, either uw-bv or v4-im. I think anyone who follows these rules will always achieve a block. I also always explain when I report to AIV the sequence followed, and as far as I know have never had a block turned down. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 672 ⟶ 681:
:Not everyone has these templates on their watchlists. May I suggest you repost your idea here [[WT:UTM]] which is the focal talk page for all user page templates. Regards <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::Removing {{tl|editprotected}} for now -- I'd prefer to see a stronger consensus in favor of the change. Doesn't seem like a bad topic for discussion, so feel free to continue to pursue this change. Add the template back after some more discussion, I guess. :) – <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<
:I support the making a change, but have another recommendation. In my experience, only experienced editors can tell the difference between {{tl|uw-vandalism1}} and {{tl|uw-vandalism2}}, as the same icon is used for levels 1 and 2. Changing this icon will let both other editors (as well as the recipient of the warnings) to know the difference between the two warnings. --[[User:Sigma 7|Sigma 7]] 03:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 739 ⟶ 748:
== Impersonation warnings ==
I was looking for a warning against impersonating other users (in particular, impersonating an admin) and either I missed it completely, or it doesn't exist. This is an obviously unacceptable practice and there should probably be a template message to those who do so. [[User:Bob f it|<font face="Impact" color="#000080" size="2">Bob </font>]]''' <b>f</b> [[User talk:Bob f it|<font face="Impact" color="#800000">it</font>]] 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)'''
:It happens in my opinion very rarely, and I have always been of the opinion that a personalised message is always better. Due to the rarity of this type of problem getting the one size fits all type wording we have with most of the other warnings will be quite difficult. I would recommend writing a personal message. I have been involved with most of these templates since the start, and there have been so many times where I will write a personal message explaining why someone screwed up instead of a template. Impersonating an admin is a bit different, in all cases whether it's someone saying they are going to punish you (which a real admin wouldn't do) or just userboxes, report the matter to [[WP:ANI]], it's much easier to approach the situation as an admin than arguing with someone who is is trying to bully different view points into submission. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 09:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 751 ⟶ 760:
== Shared IP notice ==
Where is the template that adds ''If this is an [[IP address]], and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any [[Wikipedia:vandalism|unconstructive]] edits.''? I don't use it and can't find it but it was recommended that IP address be unlinked as that article gets a large amount of IP vandalism, most likely because we are giving the vandals a link to it.
:Those templates can be found under [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Other|Other]]. There are several templates available depending upon whether it's a school, an [[ISP]], a business, etc. —[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] <small>([[User_talk:Elipongo|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Elipongo|contribs]])</small> 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 788 ⟶ 797:
I feel that there should exist a less severe warning on copyright issues. {{tl|Uw-copyright1}} currently redirects to {{tl|Uw-copyright}}, which immediately starts threatening with blocks and such, while new (or anonymous) users may not even be aware of our strict copyright policy. What about redirecting {{tl|Uw-copyright1}} and {{tl|Uw-copyright2}} to {{tl|Nothanks}} instead? <b>[[User:Salaskan|<span style="color:red">Sala</span>]][[User talk:Salaskan|<span style="color:gold">Skan</span>]]</b> 21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:Because copyright violations are a serious problem for Wikipedia that can cause legal problems for the Wikimedia foundation. Also, why would we redirect a uw- warning to an old warning? --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small> [[User:R|'''R''']] <sup>[[User_talk:R|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/R|Contribs]]<sub>[[Special:Emailuser/R|@]]</sub>(Let's Go Yankees!)</small> 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:I also disagree, copyright violations are a serious issue, and if nobody would block a 1st time violator, they need to understand that the violation is severe. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
::I thought I once heard or though it meant "deletion because," but I'm not sure. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small> [[User:R|'''R''']] <sup>[[User_talk:R|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/R|Contribs]]<sub>[[Special:Emailuser/R|@]]</sub>(Let's Go Yankees!)</small> 20:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 794 ⟶ 803:
This templete must be updated so it doesn't refer to the copyrighted information as a whole article. --[[User:MrStalker|MrStalker]] <sup>[[User talk:MrStalker|talk]]</sup> 14:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:I had this on the corner of my desk for a while now, I removed all the licensing text from the template, and redirected the people using {{tl|db-copyvio}} to a new template, {{tl|sd-copyvio}}. <small>subliminal message: guys, we need to start these templates one day</small>. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
::Looks good. And by the way, I've always wondered, what does "db" stand for? --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small> [[User:R|'''R''']] <sup>[[User_talk:R|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/R|Contribs]]<sub>[[Special:Emailuser/R|@]]</sub>(Let's Go Yankees!)</small> 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::My best guess is "dpeesy beletion", but that implies quite a strong [[dyslexia]]. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
::::Over at [[Template_talk:Db-reason]] they answered the question for you: '''D'''elete '''B'''ecause. :)--[[User:KApplebaum|Kathy A.]] 20:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Lucas, you asked it yourself on that page last month, and got an answer :) --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small> [[User:R|'''R''']] <sup>[[User_talk:R|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/R|Contribs]]<sub>[[Special:Emailuser/R|@]]</sub>(Let's Go Yankees!)</small> 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 909 ⟶ 918:
:you might want to see this discussion: [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings#Username_Block|Usernameblock]] --[[User:Hdt83|<sub><font color="336611" ><b>Hdt83</b></font></sub>]] [[User talk:Hdt83|<sup><font color="blue" face="Arial"><b>Chat</b></font></sup>]] 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:We don't need two sets of templates for doing the same thing. The templates are just about the same anyway, just the uw templates look more professional - we should standardise the way we warn vandals. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<
::Some of us feel that the new templates look far ''less'' professional. Given the fact that these aren't used in articles, there really isn't any harm in having more than one set; vandal warnings needn't be uniform in appearance. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
== Block templates ==
On the block templates, should the images be changed to [[Image:System Error Icon (Red 'X').png|25px]]? After all, the x has a transparent background, and SVG's really have no advantage considering that Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox render them as PNG's. What do you guys think? [[User:Springbob Squirepants|Springbob Squirepants]] 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:I think the SVGs should be kept. I also think the current images look better than that X. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]] 02:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::It's not the browsers that are rendering them as PNGs, it's MediaWiki. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 02:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Line 954 ⟶ 963:
Why do we have both 1-2-3-4 series of warnings and also the 4im "only warning"s? [[User:Josh the Nerd|Josh the Nerd]] 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*mm? Sorry I don't get your question :) -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]]
*Sometimes it is appropriate to give a "one time only" warning, rather than repeated warnings. If you are only going to warn someone once then it needs to be worded slightly differently (ie only warning, rather than final warning). [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
*Usually when any first time warnings are issued, editors should receive at least a lvl 1 which is [[WP:AGF]], and then perhaps a 3 then 4. If it is a IP address that has offended before, remember there's a high chance it's not the same person behind that IP then a neutral warning (lvl2) followed by a lvl4 should suffice. The IM warnings are used for high level vandal IP's, such as a schools , institution, common ISP's, or vandalism which is deemed to be particularly nasty, but often all will be blocked on sight if an admin sees it first. There is a increasingly prevalent use of the im or bv warnings on first time vandals which IMHO do not warrant this, and I may take a look into writing something up to prevent this.
Line 1,038 ⟶ 1,047:
:I don't see a specific one, but '''<nowiki>{{uw-delete2|Article name|You removed properly sourced content}}</nowiki>''' would work. It comes out as:
::[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to [[:Article name]], without giving a valid reason for the removal in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. Please make use of the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] if you'd like to experiment with test edits. You removed properly sourced content.<!-- Template:uw-delete2 -->
:would that serve your purpose? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 05:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,067 ⟶ 1,076:
Do we maybe need a notice to let people know that they should indent their talk page comments? [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
:I think even newbies of the site will get into the flow of how things roll here, don't need to press every little issue. — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<
::Sure, I was thinking more about regular users who simply forget. I often find myself reminding people. [[User:Jrphayes|John Hayes]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jrphayes|talk]]</sup> 15:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,077 ⟶ 1,086:
I've seen cases where users deface/remove vandalism warnings in their user talk and other editors come right in with a template that says "Don't do that." I've been looking for that template (the one flagging removal of warnings from one's own user talk) but I can't find it in [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]]. Did I just miss it or was I seeing something other than a template (macro, cut & paste, etc)?
--[[User:KNHaw|<font face="comic sans ms"><font color="SeaGreen"><i><b>KNHaw</b></i></font></font>]]
:There's uw-tpv1, which warns the user not to edit other people's comments on talk pages, but I'm not aware of anything that specifically addresses editing templated warnings. [[User:Natalie Erin|Natalie]] 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 1,083 ⟶ 1,092:
:::Well, the specific case most recently was someone corrupting the warning (i.e. substituting "good" for "vandalism" and other such nonsense). That would seem to call for a vandalism warning as [[User:Hdt83|Hdt83]] says. The earlier incidents I saw of just blanking a page (if showing bad faith) seems like [[User:Natalie Erin|Natalie]]'s suggestion of uw-tpv1 would be in order.
:::Would a template specifically for this seem to be useful? I only really see it once a month or so, but it's not like I'm a really active vandal patroller. --[[User:KNHaw|<font face="comic sans ms"><font color="SeaGreen"><i><b>KNHaw</b></i></font></font>]]
::::I don't think a specific template is necessary, since tpv1 really does cover this action. In general, editing other users comments so that it looks like they said something they did is a bad thing, whether their comment was a vandalism warning or a welcome. [[User:Natalie Erin|Natalie]] 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::What?! Since when was this changed? I was always under the impression that [[WP:USER]] was to the contrary. I'm sure I remember using templates like [[User:KNHaw|KNHaw]] is referring to. --'''[[User:Reaper_X|<font color="#000000"> Reaper</font>]] [[User talk:Reaper_X|<font color="#ff0000"> X</font>]]''' 17:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
*There used to be, but we got rid of them because overzealous vandal fighters started revert warring over user talk pages, claiming that the warnings they placed there should remain as a permanent record. In short they were generating more heat than light. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><
== Proposing alterations? ==
Line 1,155 ⟶ 1,164:
::I made the change to {{tl|uw-mos1}} - do you see some other issue with this template? As to your second point, bots use their own messaging scripts that are developed by the bot operators.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 16:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Uw-v1 is very good now. :) With uw-mos1 you only forgot one word <
== Proposed new template: [[:template:uw-ani]] ==
Per discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard]], [[User:Anonymous Dissident]] created (with some modifications by me) {{tl|uw-ani}} as a non bitey way to warn users that their post at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] was at the wrong forum. Although it has not been used, in retrospect we probably should have discussed that here first. But if anyone cares to comment on either the utility of the template or suggest (or make improvements) to the template, it would be appreciated. Regards, [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]] [[User talk:Flyguy649|<sup>talk
:It's not a bad idea, though I do have two issues/concerns. First, I'm not sure it's really needed. If someone posts on AN/I and it's clearly the wrong place, someone else will almost always point that out. If it's being pointed out on the thread, it seems unnecessary to point it out again on the poster's talk page. Second, we have lots of forums where someone might post a message that actually belongs elsewhere. We already have {{tl|uw-notaiv}} and {{tl|uw-uaa}}, and I don't know that we want to clutter UTM with a separate template for every possible misposting. So, if we do go forward with this template, I suggest making it a bit more generic to cover various possible mispostings. However, I lean towards thinking this is an individual message rather than template situation.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
== Removing old warnings ==
I have noticed in several cases that IP addresses with old warnings on their talk pages can cause confusion. For example, I recall a case where an IP was reported to [[WP:AIV]] because it had "vandalized after a final warning" - but the final warning had been given 7 months earlier (i.e. it had nothing to do with the recent vandalism). I'm sure this happens often since I don't check WP:AIV on a daily basis or anything. Should we be deleting these old, obviously irrelevant warnings as a matter of course? (maybe the arbitrary date could be "the most recent warning is more than 1 month old). If the IP has been blocked before, that can easily be seen in the block log, so there is no problem about admins not noticing a long-term pattern of vandalism. [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 06:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:There is nothing written in stone about what happens to these talk pages, except for about the last year editors have been able remove warnings from ''their'' talk pages without any problems. On a problematic vandal IP address, or an institute IP address, the editors very rarely use these pages in discussion with the community, hence it is I believe up to us to control these pages. I have my own system when I go through talk pages, of formatting it in the month/numbered system and more often as not I tend to delete warnings older than six months - 8 months. I think it's only the recent pattern of vandalism that is interesting and if we are going to block we also automatically see their block log anyway. I know exactly how you feel with regards to AIV, yesterday I dished out 5 {{tl|uw-aiv}} templates as all 5 reports on the page had not been given warnings or final warnings. cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:Keep also in mind that admins see the block log when they block an IP. Therefore old warnings can be safely removed if they resulted in a block. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|<sup style="color:darkblue;">talk</sup>]] 18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
== Change to uw-upv? ==
I started to use [[Template:Uw-upv|uw-upv]] earlier today to warn a user, but changed my mind because of this sentence: "If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes." That seems inappropriate in cases where you're sure that the user isn't the same person, like this one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWalton_One&diff=154357339&oldid=152268084]. (I'd think that's usually the case, actually -- if you feel you need to warn the person for the edit, it's probably for something that the actual user wouldn't have done.) So, what do people people think about either removing that sentence or making a uw-upv2 that doesn't include it? [[User:Pinball22|Pinball22]] 13:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:I've never been a big fan of that sentence either, and I've only ever used this template if I am virtually certain it's not the user. So, I'd support removal.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:It's meant to be non-bitey, but I agree that it isn't necessary. [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]] [[User talk:Flyguy649|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|<sub>contribs</sub>]] 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::(removed my earlier comment) Well... Personally I would only use this template if I have reasons to assume the edit was made in good faith (eg, someone writing there instead of the talk page, or a neutral edit and in this case the section might be useful te remind that user to log in), and use vand if I think this is vandalism. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] [[User talk:Lucasbfr|<sup style="color:darkblue;">talk</sup>]] 18:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:::But since this one specifically says "may be considered vandalism", it's not really useful as a good-faith reminder for those situations either, in my mind. (In fact, I wouldn't mind if there were separate templates for those cases, though that might be going overboard with the templates.) Anyway, yeah, I just used uw-vandalism1 in this case, but I'd like there to be a useful user-page-vandalism one. [[User:Pinball22|Pinball22]] 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
== {{tl|uw-warn}} ==
Could someone please enlighten me as to what {{tl|uw-warn}} is supposed to accomplish? I feel as though anyone who would recieve such a message is already well aware of the ideas conveyed. Warning at every opportunity seems punitive at best. [[User:Isopropyl|Isopropyl]] 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:As [[WP:AIV|Administrator intervention against vandalism]] states that before a vandal may be reported, the abusive editor must have both received a "proper set" of warnings, and still continued to vandalize after a recent ''last'' warning. If the first person to catch the vandal [[WP:AGF|assumes good faith]], then that means the vandal will get as many as four warnings before being reported to AIV. In an ideal world where editors immediately catch vandalism and issue warnings, then vandals would be blocked after just five attacks of vandalism. However when a vandal gets reverted without also receiving a warning, then getting the persistent vandal blocked takes that much longer. While {{tl|uw-warn}} does nothing about editors who cannot be bothered to leave warnings, it is a fast, friendly, and informative way to bring up to speed those editors who are new to the vandal fighting process. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
== Inconsistent wording, ''unreferenced controversial information about living persons'' (i.e. [[Template:Uw-biog2|Uw-biog2]]) ==
The wording of the ''Uw-bio'' template is inconsistent in a problematic way. The template is named ''adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons'', but essential wording that describes the offending edit varies, depending on the level warning that is being used. The difference is that [[Template:Uw-biog1|level one]] and [[Template:Uw-biog3|level three]] warnings are faithful to the name of the template and chide addition of ''any'' unreferenced, controversial biographical information, while [[Template:Uw-biog2|level two]] and [[Template:Uw-biog4|level four]] warnings state that such information should not be added to ''articles'' about living people. For example, the name of the template suggests that it is appropriate to warn about defamatory edits in an article about a high school, but the wording of the second and fourth level warnings is inapplicable because, although the information may be about a living person, the article itself is not about a living person, but a high school.
I propose that the wording of the [[Template:Uw-biog2|second level]] and [[Template:Uw-biog4|fourth level]] warnings be revised to remove the reference to ''articles'' about living people, and instead conform to the name of the template, i.e., ''addition of controversial information about living persons'', no matter the name or subject-matter of the article. Best [[User:DRTllbrg|<span style="color: #FFAD04">► <b><span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #FF2400">DRT</span></b><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color: #FFD800">ïllberġ</span> ◄</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:DRTllbrg|Talk]]</sup> 20:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:The level four warning looks OK, but I agree with you about the level 2 warning.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::I adjusted the language of the level 2 per the suggestion. Thanks.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 01:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
== Names ==
Can these be given '''short memorable text''', like the old warn1 etc? I only use these half as often because I have to go & look them up. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:They do have shortcuts - {{tl|uw-v1}} for vandalism 1; {{tl|uw-d1}} for delete1; {{tl|uw-t1}} for test 1 etc.
== "Don't template the regulars" ==
<div class="messagebox">[[image:information.svg|25px]] '''Note''' - following rfc template nowikied, rfc should not be open on archived page. [[User:DMcMPO11AAUK|DMcMPO11AAUK]]/[[User talk:DMcMPO11AAUK|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/DMcMPO11AAUK|Contribs]] 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)</div>
<nowiki>{{RFCpolicy | section="Don't template the regulars" !! reason=A discussion having to do with the adage "don't template the regulars" to the policy page. !! time=23:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)}}</nowiki>
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplate_messages%2FUser_talk_namespace&diff=147833849&oldid=146678403 This] should not have been added to the guideline. There is no consensus for it. There are in fact many valid objections to the whole essay on [[Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars]]. Please make sure there is a consensus for this before adding it again. [[User:IPSOS|IPSOS]] ([[User talk:IPSOS|talk]]) 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:I agree, there is no consensus for either templating or not the regulars. I'm fairly new, and don't know exactly what I think about the issue yet. I like templates, they are generally nicely phrased and follow guidelines on proper behavior. Many are also geared toward new users. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::I agree there is certainly no consensus for the '''opinion''' that regulars should not be templated. [[User:Until(1 == 2)|<font color="maroon">Until</font>]][[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|<font color="black">(<font color="blue">1 <font color="maroon">==</font> 2</font>)</font>]] 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Is it worthwhile to try for enough consensus to call either action a 'guideline'? --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] 17:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::No, I think the idea is best kept in essays, since it is opinion based. [[User:Until(1 == 2)|<font color="maroon">Until</font>]][[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|<font color="black">(<font color="blue">1 <font color="maroon">==</font> 2</font>)</font>]] 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] 18:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
*I agree there is no consensus on this, and it should not be here. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, regardless, does anyone have a problem with the essay being mentioned, so long as the mention does not advocate one way or another? [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]</sup> <span title="Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace">§</span> 02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
**If you mention it, I think there should be an explict mention that it does not have consensus, and a link to [[Wikipedia:Template the regulars]], also. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::It should not be mentioned in policy while opinion is so divided on the matter, neither way is required, it is really just a stylistic choice. [[User:Until(1 == 2)|<font color="maroon">Until</font>]][[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|<font color="black">(<font color="blue">1 <font color="maroon">==</font> 2</font>)</font>]] 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I support to keep this article with some changes.Recently a newbie posted a warning msg on my userpage stating that i have posted copyrighted material, which actually i hadn't.this policy may help established editors not to face such harrasment and badname.Check my talkpage for details.[[User:Amartyabag|<span style="color:#0082B8;">Amartyabag</span>]] [[User Talk:Amartyabag|<span style="color:#FF3333;"><small> <sup>TALK2ME</sup></small></span>]] 05:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
*Well actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that shows that 'templating regulars' is ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst, in resolving just about anything. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#0000DD;">><span style="color:#0066FF;">R<span style="color:#0099FF;">a<span style="color:#00CCFF;">d<span style="color:#00EEFF;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span><</span></b>]] 08:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears that an editor [[WP:BOLD]]ly promoted [[WP:DTTR|Don't template the regulars]] from essay to guideline [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_template_the_regulars&diff=next&oldid=150171742]. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 04:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
===Proposed changes===
I've looked through the warnings, and in most cases the only difference between level1 and level2 warnings is the inclusion of welcome messages in level1. Therefore I suggest two changes:
# change the wording distinguishing level1 and level2. Both assume good faith, but level1 includes a welcome message.
# add a section that there is no consensus about templating regulars with links to [[WP:DTTR]] ''and'' [[WP:TTR]]. Note that some regulars find the welcoming tone of level1 messages condescending, and recommend that if the choice is made to template a regular, it might be a good idea to skip level1 and go directly to the level2 message, which is shorter, neutral, and assumes good faith.
In cases where there is more of a difference between l1 and l2, the messages should be changed to make them appropriate for a first warning for regulars. [[User:IPSOS|IPSOS]] ([[User talk:IPSOS|talk]]) 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:I have not problem mentioning that level 1 contains a welcome message. But there is no point in bringing up an issue in the policy and then saying "we have no consensus". There are also 27 other things we don't have consensus on that we can mention. I say that we ''leave it out'', people can quote the essay in their arguments but it has no place at all in policy. [[User:Until(1 == 2)|<font color="maroon">Until</font>]][[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|<font color="black">(<font color="blue">1 <font color="maroon">==</font> 2</font>)</font>]] 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with Unit1==2, add info regarding the welcome message on level 1's and that it's the only substantive difference between that and level 2, and leave out the discussion part. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] 14:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::But it isn't quit the only substantive difference. Level 1 notices explicitly assume that a good-faith erro has been made, level 2 notices make no such assumption. Of course this arguably makes level 2 that much more appropriate for an experienced editor, but it is an additional difference. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::::If you look at the second level messages, they are (for the most part) the same as the first level messages except for the lack of welcoming language. So I disagree that they don't assume good faith. That is simply how they are described. The description can be changed... [[User:IPSOS|IPSOS]] ([[User talk:IPSOS|talk]]) 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's take a look at several of them, then:
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"
|+Warning template comparison:
|-
! Series!! Level 1 text !! Level 2 text !! Summery of difs
|-
! vand
|Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you
|Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
|1 includes welcome language, '''and''' bends over backward to assume good faith and mistake rather than malice. It points to the sandbox. 2 does none of these.
|-
!delete
| Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Wikipedia. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
|Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.
|1 includes welcome language and is at considerable pains to assume good faith. 2 assumes good faith, but rather more weakly.
|-
!spam
|Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
|Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
|1 includes welcome language, but is otherwise similar to 2
|-
!joke
|Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want.
|Thank you for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Thank you.
|1 includes welcome language, and assumes good faith. 2 is brusquer, but at least implicitly still assumes good faith
|-
!create
|Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.
|Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
|1 includes welcome language, and clearly assumes good faith. 2 does neither.
|-
!upload
|Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your test worked, and the image that you uploaded has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.
|Please refrain from uploading disruptive images with no encyclopedic value. It is considered vandalism. Thank you.
|1 includes welcome language, and callas the act a 'test" thereby assuming good faith. 2 calls it "disruptive" and 'vandalism" thereby assuming bad faith.
|-
!image
|Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.
|Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia; it is considered to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
|speaks of "experimenting" thereby assuming good faith. 2 speaks of "inappropriate images" and "vandalism". No welcome language in either
|-
!unsourced
|Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
|Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you.
|1 includes welcome language, appears to assume good faith by explaining policy. 2 is neutral, but clearly does not assume bad faith.
|-
!notcensored
|Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia is not censored, not even to remove profanity or pornography. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
|Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you.
|1 includes welcome language, carefully explains policy, thereby seems to assume good faith, although not explicitly. 2 does neither, simply calling attention to the violation, but does not assume bad faith.
|-
|}
I hope these examples are of interest. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
:The tone of the level 2 warnings was intended to be slightly different, typically by referencing (and linking to) the policy on vandalism. As I look through the UTM page, it occurs to me that the "uw" templates, with some exceptions, are the ones most likely to be inappropriate, IMO, to leave on a "regular" editor's talk page. Perhaps we can convert all warnings to uw and non-uw, and use this as a rough guideline on which ones are not designed to be used in connection with long term editors.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
ISPOS: The intended difference between the two levels is that one assumes good faith, and the other assumes no faith. This was part of the templates' design. Level 2 is meant to imply nothing about the intentions of the templated editor: only about his/her actions. Again, it assumes no faith.
The main way in which Level 1 assumes good faith is by assuming that the editor does not know any better: that he/she does not know about a certain policy or guideline, or about the purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to assume good faith about an experienced editor's actions, it is best to not use a warning template at all—you can assume that they know better, and merely made a mistake. Level 1 is not appropriate in this case, because the ''purpose'' of Level 1 templates is not to point out that someone made a mistake; their purpose is to inform about policy. Assuming that an experienced editor is a clueless newbie who knows little about policy can be insulting to that editor.
This is why the "welcome to Wikipedia" message is included in the first level and not the second. That noticeable difference between Level 1 and Level 2 templates is a result of the more subtle good-faith-vs.-no-faith difference. [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]</sup> <span title="Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace">§</span> 17:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
: This is a design flaw that has been built in from the beginning of the uw_ system: There was never any agreement on what the levels actually are supposed to mean. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings&oldid=101266917#Systemic_problems_with_the_current_levels here] for an attempt to systematize this early on, which unfortunately didn't catch on. Maybe it's a better time for it now that people are beginning to realize what a mess it is. — [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 16:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
===Proposed changes?===
Why on earth should 'regulars' receive special treatment? Who defines regular? I believe the 'Welcome to Wikipedia' phrase should serve as a useful reminder to anyone who may consider themselves slightly above the status of new or irregular editors that in all aspects of this particular project, they are not. If they consider the use of templates offensive, they really need to stop and consider why they have recieved what I hope 'regular' editors consider a measured, sensible response to whatever it is they have done. Welcome to Wikipedia! [[User:Mighty Antar|Mighty Antar]] 20:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:It's not special treatment, it's respect. Regular, full-time editors of this site don't like to see automated templates when they have been an editor here for over a couple of years or so. The reason it is offensive is because established editors know what they are doing and giving them the standarized "you have been warned" message is either trolling or given by someone they are in a dispute with. Instead of creating some formal guideline on it, I suggest people do what I do and just revert the smart ass who sent you the message and tell them exactly what you were doing. If that doesn't work go to the next step in dispute resolution. — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:#FF0000;">M</span><span style="color:#EE0000;">o</span><span style="color:#DD0000;">e</span>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ε</span>]] 09:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you. This is precisely the sort of arrogant attitude I was hoping to highlight.[[User:Mighty Antar|Mighty Antar]] 12:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
:::That kind of arrogant kind of attitude underminding Wikipedia editors to begin with is exactly what I was talking about. — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:#FF0000;">M</span><span style="color:#EE0000;">o</span><span style="color:#DD0000;">e</span>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ε</span>]] 16:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Hey, let's calm down a bit with this. Whichever way this debate goes, it's unlikely to affect either of you. Even if it does, it's still good to keep [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] on the matter. My opinion on this is that there are too many vandals to write each of them a personalised message. That's where the templates come in. Vandals are unlikely to last long enough to become regulars, so why use a template for vandals on a regular user? In fact, they'd probably find it a bit patronising (I know I would). By the way, just because I agree with Moe's view doesn't mean I agree with his treatment of the situation. [[User:CarrotMan|<font color="0066cc">Carrot</font>]][[User talk:CarrotMan|<font color="ff3333">Man</font>]] 19:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::So what was exactly was my treatment of the situation? If someone comes to my talk page and they template me about my supposed "incivilty", "vandalism", or "violation" of image policies, that need tagging, I'm going to revert them. I'm not going to sit there and analyze or reflect on something I don't do. In fact, no regular editor of this encyclopedia should have to deal with the nonsense use of the templates. Templates are meant for users who are unfamiliar with policies and guidelines. As an editor of this site for over two years, templating me is patronizing and shows a deep lack of respect for me. If someone has an issue with what I do here, they can approach me and not be a wimp take the easy template-related way out of it. This also goes for any other situation like 3RR, or any other template. I'm aware of everything I do here, and baiting me to be incivil with template warnings shouldn't be happening. — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:#FF0000;">M</span><span style="color:#EE0000;">o</span><span style="color:#DD0000;">e</span>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ε</span>]] 14:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
:I also don't consider it "special treatment". The fact is that the vast majority of the UTM templates were designed for communication with new users. We can't expect new users to be familiar with the myriad of WP policies and guidelines, so the templates serve as useful ways to point new editors to pertinent policies. We do, however, expect regular editors to be generally familiar with the basic policies and guidelines. Thus, if you have a concern with a regular editor, it's likely to be a more complicated situation that can't be addressed with a canned template.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::While I can intellectually agree with ''Kubigula'', I still feel that a couple of the templates (most notably {{tl|uw-3rr}} and {{tl|uw-warn}}) are valid for use on regulars ... especially since "regulars" has such a nebulous definition. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 12:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Absolutely true. Most of the templates on UTM are designed to be used with new editors, but a significant portion are appropriate for new users or regulars. If this keeps coming up, perhaps we should make an effort to delineate which are designed for new users.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:You know, I agree with the first poster above. I don't agree with this objection to regulars being templated. Some templates may be for users unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and those wouldn't be appropriate for regulars in most cases, but that's not their only purpose. Notification templates, for example are clearly not meant to do anything but save an editor time. Like with a page being put up for deletion. Or, as I've noticed sometimes, people thanking folks for participation in an Request for Adminship. I doubt anybody really objects to that, and if they do, I'm sure folks would just say they're the ones being crotchety. Now where I see the problem is with warnings. And that's possibly because somebody did something wrong. Maybe it's the person who got templated, maybe it's the person doing the templating. How do we know? It'll depend on the circumstances, but I think it's just as likely for somebody to get offended if you send them a personal message rather than a template. I know a lot of people have made personal attacks or made uncivil comments and are completely unable to recognize it. The fact is, if you're offended by somebody expressing a concern about your behavior, it is best to reflect on it, and take a good honest look at your actions. It may be you've done nothing wrong. I know I've faced my share of frivolous accusations from folks who would rather attack me than stick to the content(and none of them ever used a template as far as I can recall), but it seems excessive to me to reject the use of templates at all. If there's a problem, it's more in the particulars than the general situation. So far as it goes though, I don't see any harm in distinguishing templates based on how appropriate they are for regulars versus new users. [[User:FrozenPurpleCube|FrozenPurpleCube]] 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
===If UTM templates were only applicable to issues of straightforward vandalism, then this debate would not be taking place.===
If you use templates for some editors and not for others in identical circumstances, how is it anything other than special treatment? Templates are warnings, but they also convey standardised messages. They are not a blot on status or some sort of non-redeemable demerit. How can their use on anyone be defended if they are considered to be so patronising?
Level 1 UTM Templates should offer a straightforward way of telling someone they have made a mistake. They should help avoid petty incivilities, they should make clear the fault, point to better practice and be phrased in such a way that whether this is your first edit or your ten thousandth, you recognise not that this is not some sort of damnation of all your efforts on Wikipedia, but that you have simply made a mistake.
Editors are human beings and not robots. Familiarity with policies and guidelines may mean that they produce a vast amount of really great work, but this does not exclude them from making mistakes.
Perhaps the point to consider is, if you are unable to tolerate the minor criticism implicit in a Level 1 template, should they really be used for anything other than straightforward blatant vandalisim? [[User:Mighty Antar|Mighty Antar]] 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:The question here is, how often does a regular editor make a mistake? Not very often. When you find that a regular has made a slip-up, it's not as though there's a million other regulars who are also churning out mistakes by the dozen. With that in mind, why is it so essential to just slap a template on their talk page and surf off in search of any other accidents? Major mistakes by regulars are fairly rare (at least, that's what I would have thought), so why rush? And if it's just a minor mistake, why tell them at all? Just correct it and leave it at that. If everyone told everyone that they'd corrected their spelling/grammar/punctuation mistake, we'd still be no more than the internet equivalent of an explanatory pamphlet. Templates are for those who need to crack down on vandals in a hurry, not for notifying regulars of a (probably) one-off mistake. [[User:CarrotMan|<font color="0066cc">Carrot</font>]][[User talk:CarrotMan|<font color="ff3333">Man</font>]] 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
== There seems to be something wrong with piping the article a person edited in after using subst ==
<nowiki>Like in {{subst:uw-test1|Article}}</nowiki>, it doesn't work properly. --[[User:Addict 2006|Addict]] [[User talk:Addict 2006|2006]] 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
:Perhaps you should be more specific, <nowiki>{{subst:uw-test1|Article}}</nowiki> seems to work fine to me. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]] 14:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::Me too.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 15:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Ditto for me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:169.204.230.246&diff=next&oldid=134871296]. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
== Uw-bv and Uw-vandalism4im ==
To me, both Uw-bv and Uw-vandalism4im seem to accomplish the same task. They both give the vandal some sort of final warning (since uw-bv is single-issue and an editor is unlikely warn again after issuing Uw-vandalism4im) and let the vandal/personal attacker/etc. know that he/she will be blocked if he/she keeps vandalizing. Even though {{tl|Uw-vandalism4im}} is not part of the single-issue user warning set, I believe the template fits that criteria because it's an '''only warning''' which bypasses the usual set of four vandalism warning templates. To me, it looks like {{tl|uw-bv}} is just a wordy version of uw-vandalism4im with a slightly friendier intro "Welcome to Wikipedia". I think the content in uw-bv should be merged into Uw-vandalism4im. Comments? [[User:Hydrogen Iodide|<sub><font color="blue" ><b>Hydrogen Iodide</b></font></sub>]] [[User talk:Hydrogen Iodide|<sub><font color="indigo" face="Arial"><b>(HI!)</b></font></sub>]] 01:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
== adding "blankown" template? ==
In trying to find out what could be done about an editor who blanks their own talk page to hide recently-issued vandalism warnings, I discovered the {{tl|blankown}} template. It seems to me that this belongs in this article (it is certainly a template intended for the "User talk" namespace) but I'm not sure where. Any suggestions? Even though blanking your own talk page is not technically considered vandalism it is still frowned upon, and I think it would be appropriate to add it to [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/User talk namespace#Warnings and Notices|Single level warnings]]. Would like to hear feedback from others. [[User:Twp|Tim Pierce]] 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
*Don't [[Template:Uw-tpv3]] and its siblings cover this? --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
::Um, my understanding is that there is no consensus that blanking your talk page is against any sort of rule. I think it should be, but I don't think it is that way. ([[User:Until(1 == 2)|(<font color="blue">1 <font color="maroon">==</font> 2</font>)]] ? ([[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|('<font color="maroon">Stop</font>') : ('<font color="Green">Go</font>')]]) 05:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
::Blanking or defacing someone else's talk page is vandalism, but not your own. See the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/FAQ#How about creating a user warning template...|WikiProject User Warnings FAQ]] for background. [[User:Twp|Tim Pierce]] 05:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
== Two proposed templates ==
Based on several conversations here and at [[WT:UW]], I am proposing two templates for addition to the UTM page. First, a warning template for misuse of blocking or warning templates - proposed text available [[User:Oysterguitarist/Sandbox|here]]. Second, a warning template for inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries - proposed text available [[Template:Wrongsummary1|here]]. They are both designed to be usable as level one/AGF warnings, though neither has the "welcome to Wikipedia" language - so they can be used after another message or warning.
I know there is some concern about template creep, or excessive numbers of warning templates, and I share that concern to a degree. However, there is a value in having specific templates available for situations where a more generic warning might not be sufficient to clarify the editing concern. I believe these templates would be useful additions to UTM, and there have been several requests for them.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
:I don't mind the idea of a template for edit summaries. However, I don't see the need for a template for improper warnings. If the warnings are used to vandalise, then use the uw-vandalism series on the user who falsely warned. If the warning was left in error, but in good faith, a friendly note works well. My 2 cents. [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]] [[User talk:Flyguy649|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|<sub>contribs</sub>]] 20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
::I felt the same way initially, but there was a [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings#Misuse of warning templates notice|conversation]] on the uw talk page that ultimately swayed me to thinking the template could be useful.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 23:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I believe that the template for edit summaries should include "deceptive" somewhere in there. Some vandals learn to put "rv" or "spelling" in their ES to avoid suspicion. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<span style="color:black;">bibliomaniac</span>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<span style="color:red;">1</span><span style="color:blue;">5</span>]]''''' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|Two years of trouble and general madness]]</small> 21:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::::I understand. However, if you include the word "deceptive", the template's not really useable as a level one AGF warning. My own feeling is that it's worth having as a single use template, with follow-up by the regular vandalism warnings - we've made it clear to the vandal that we are on to his or her trick.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::There is also discussion about inappropriate edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings/Archive_1#Inappropriate_edit_Summaries here]. [[User:Hydrogen Iodide|Hydrogen Iodide]] 21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
{{done}}. {{tl|uw-wrongsummary}} and {{tl|uw-tempabuse}} have been added to UTM. The names are a bit long, so we may need shortcuts.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 02:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
| |||
.png){kind=link}