Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:15, 24 November 2007

Revision as of 06:50, 29 November 2007

Line 285:

:I would hope that the link to [[Wikipedia:Talk page]] that's already there would be sufficient, but I see no harm in being more explicit.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

== Using templates ==

Is the number 1 supposed to show up at the beginning on all these? Seems out of place when warning them.

--[[User:Xiahou|Xiahou]] 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Line 291 ⟶ 292:

:Please read [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings#Layout_Guidelines|here]] for details. Regards [[User:Khukri|'''Khukri''']] ^{([[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana">talk</font>''']] . [[Special:Contributions/Khukri|'''<font face="verdana">contribs</font>''']])} 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Organizing this page ==

Could we break this page down a little more so that the templates get their own subsections for each violation type, similar to what has been done for blocks at the bottom of the page? For instance, create subsections for: Vandalism, Blanking, Testing, User pages, Informational error, Manual of style, Assume good faith, No personal attacks, Defamatory content, Joking, Biographical accuracy, Neutral point of view, Ownership of articles (typo in level two template), Spam links, Copright infringement, Creating articles, 3RR, Images, Censorship, Unsourced content, and Moving articles. It's hard to grab the right template when in a hurry to let an editor know that their current action is not 100% acceptable according to Wiki standards. <b><i><font face="Times New Roman" color="darkblue">[[User:Zuejay|Zue]]</font></i><font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Zuejay|Jay]]</font>^{[[User talk:Zuejay|talk]]}</b> 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:You know, that's a good idea. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to do it unles everyone agrees. Any other Yay's OR Nay's? -- [[User:Nerketur|Nerketur]] 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Line 310 ⟶ 312:

::::And Khukri has put it on the single level page too already. Thanks. [[User:WilliamKF|WilliamKF]] 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

== sequence ==

Is there any rationale behind the ___location of the various items--they seem in no particular order. If no one has a better idea, I'm going to group them as article/edit/behavior/misc

Line 347 ⟶ 350:

==NOR==-

NOR was added. what is the consensus that the addition of NOR would in the absence of other considerations warrant a block? '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

== <nowiki>{{uw-notyours3}}?</nowiki> ==

What is the right template to use for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiewzhenyi&diff=167648302&oldid=167447174 someone who maliciously edits other people's comments (including warnings) on their userpage]? {{tl|notyours}} assumes the edits were for "clarity, spelling or grammar", the {{tl|uw-tpv1}} series mentions ''deleting'' comments which on your own user talk page is frowned upon but not strictly against policy... is there anything that covers this? - [[User:I do not exist|<span style="color:teal">∅</span>]] ([[User talk:I do not exist|<span style="color: gold; font-weight: bold;">∅</span>]]), 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

: {{tl|uw-tpv2}}? You can easily add any clarification after the template. &mdash; [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 02:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

::I'd say the tpv series works fine. They say delete '''or''' edit, so they are broad enough to cover this situation.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

== original research? ==

I just noticed that there is currently not a warning series for people adding [[WP:OR|original research]] to articles. I'd be interested in collaborating on creating a series analogous to the NPOV series.[[User:Ngchen|Ngchen]] 15:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:{{Tl|Nor}} and {{tl|Nor2}} are out there, though they were never converted to the new format. Personally, I don't think a separate series for NOR is necessary. The "unsourced" template series (i.e. {{tl|uw-unsor1}} etc) works pretty well in this situation. I recognize that there is a difference between what is original research and what is simply unsourced , but I don't think the distinction needs to be laid out in a warning template. Alternately, I wouldn't oppose adding a bit to the "unsourced" template to cover NOR as well.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

::In addition to ''Kubigula''`s suggestion of {{tl|uw-unsourced1}}, I have also found {{tl|uw-biog1}} to be useful in some similar situations. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

== Thank you for what? ==

I appreciate the soft approach and the hope that the urge to vandalize may be turned into the urge to contribute to building an encyclopedia, but in many cases the "test" is clear-cut vandalism, and then the "thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia", in which we are thanking them for the very act of vandalizing Wikipedia, sounds ironic rather than friendly. What about "thank you for your interest in Wikipedia"? &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:One editor's garbage is another editor's [[Pablo Picasso|Picasso]]. If you feel that an edit really was vandalism rather that a test, use a {{tl|uw-vandalism1}} warning rather than a {{tl|uw-test1}}. Personally, for a first edit issue, I generally use whichever warning is most appropriate for the situation, but the "Big Five" ({{tl|uw-delete1}}, {{tl|uw-error1}}, {{tl|uw-test1}},{{tl|uw-unsourced1}}, and {{tl|uw-vandalism1}}) normally work quite well for me 95% or more of the time. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)