Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 7: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
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 78:
: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|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]][[User talk:Gracenotes|<sup style="color:#960;">T</sup>]] § 14:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::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 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 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 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 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 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 1,176:
: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 1,183:
: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]]
:::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}} ==
| |||