Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 7: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:48, 15 September 2007

Revision as of 06:48, 20 September 2007

Line 1,162:

: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 ^{[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]} 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|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]} 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|^talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|_contribs]] 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|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]} 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)