Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 7: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Replacing X_(1).png with File:System_Error_Icon_(Red_'X').png (by CommonsDelinker because: File renamed: Criterion 2 (meaningless or ambiguous name)). |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 12:
== {{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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 206:
: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
{{quote|<nowiki>{{subst:Uw-vandalism3|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1|}}}}}|2=Also note that using [[LGBT]] terms to vandalize promotes hatred and is offensive to many people. Please stop promoting intolerance. }}</nowiki>}}
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 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 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 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 300:
: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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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:
: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 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 1,076:
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 1,086:
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 1,092:
:::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 1,164:
::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)
Line 1,176:
: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]]
== Change to uw-upv? ==
Line 1,182:
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
::(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]]
:::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}} ==
Line 1,225:
:::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|<
*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><
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)
Line 1,308:
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|<
::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|<
::::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|<
: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)
Line 1,358:
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
::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|<
::::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)
| |||
.png){kind=link}