Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace. 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 current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Template idea/request
Removal of redirect
For the instances when editors remove redirects, thus basically reinstating an old version of an article that was moved, resulting in two articles with basically the same content. I have seen this so many times, and there is no existing template message that I can find that covers this issue.
Proposed Single issue notice draft at:
{{subst:User:ArielGold/template|Article|Extra Text}}
Appears as:
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! We appreciate all editors coming to help improve the encyclopedia. However, it appears that one of your edits recently removed an existing redirect. Please do not remove redirects, because it splits the article's page history, which is needed for attribution, and creates two variants of the same article. Instead, please discuss your concerns about the redirect on the main article's talk page, and propose possible solutions. Redirects created from page moves should remain in place, unless consensus is reached by the community to change them. Thank you. Ariel♥Gold 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts? (Feel free to edit the template as needed if I've made a mistake with scripting.) Ariel♥Gold 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's nicely written. I haven't personally run into this situation much myself, so I can't speak to the need for a template message.--Kubigula (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
{{uw-unsor1}}
After using {{uw-unsor1}} and then hearing a reasonable objection to the wording from the receiving editor at my talk, I made bold changes to {{uw-unsor1}} and {{uw-unsor2}} I looked at {{uw-unsor3}} but decided that politeness was not indicated for it, so did not make changes to it. A few more talk page comments followed as indicated on my talk and now I am bringing the changes here for review and comment change to uw-unsor1 and change to uw-unsor2. Essentially I have added a polite section that implies the editor is familiar with policy but some how the references did get saved on the current version of the article. To the second template {{uw-unsor2}} I added a bit offering to help if the editor is not familiar with how to add references. Thoughts or comments? Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, and of course, not to the question you asked;-) . But I think the level 3 is to nice, compared to the other level 3-s. It should have no "thank you" at the ending, should it? Most of them don't even have the sandbox-comment. It is assumed the user in question allready know about the sandbox when we have to issue a level 3 warning. Greswik 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
{{uw-subst}}
I left this template for someone the other day and they came back to me for an explanation. I think it could use some clarification. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Transclusion
This page is huge. I suggest moving the tables of templates into different sub-pages, and transcluding them back to the main Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 14:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- 35K doesn't seem huge. Is this really a problem? EdJohnston 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had to clarify. I meant huge in the sense of the template box lists. Users who may wish to add or edit the current template boxes might have some trouble adding to them. Editing by sections eases this issue, but I just thought that sub-pages could be more efficient. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
{{uw-notenglish}}
Is there a variant of notenglish that is more suitable for articles? In particular, there was a Portuguese article written, and the message I used isn't optimal. --Sigma 7 02:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
{{uw-afd1}}
Is there a variant of this series of templates which can be used for people removing fair use warnings from their user talk pages? This is something I came across in User talk:BrothaTimothy whilst patrolling the Recent Changes Log for vandalism. The template didn't really say what I needed it to say, but I used it nonetheless. Thanks. --Tckma 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Warnings about users removing warnings from their own pages seems to be frequently requested… If the user has taken care of the problem image (even if "taking care of it" means "let it be deleted"), why shouldn't they remove the warnings? Anomie 11:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Even more templates
I was wondering if these should be included here and/or standardized/merged?
Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages
Thanks. - Rocket000 02:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the level4 warning templates slightly
So as to make them less inflammatory. Instead of "This is your last/only warning", they read "This is the last/only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits".--Avant Guard 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"McGonegal rocks!" - vandalism, NPOV, or other?
When a user ads a comment like "McGonegal is the best character in the HP series", what should we do? A NPOV warning seems a bit too mild, but it's an on-topic coversation, so it's not quite vandalism. Do we need one that fits between them, like "this comment was written in an un-encyclopedic tone"?--SarekOfVulcan 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Depends on where it is. If it's on an HP page, it's just silly stupid stuff. If it's on, say, Abraham Lincoln, it's vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
{{uw-afd}} suggestion
Is it worthwhile to create uw-cfd and uw-mfd templates corresponding to the {{uw-afd}} series of templates? Alternately, perhaps we can add a parameter to the uw-afd tags so that they can be used for category and miscellany for deletion notices as well? Something along the following lines:
It would be appreciated if you would not remove {{
#switch:{{{type}}}
|afd=[[Template:Afd|Articles for deletion notices]]
|cfd=[[Template:Cfd|Categories for deletion notices]]
|mfd=[[Template:Mfd|Miscellany for deletion notices]]
|[[Template:Afd|Articles for deletion notices]]
}} or remove other people's comments in {{
#switch:{{{type}}}
|afd=[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion debates]]
|cfd=[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion|Categories for deletion debates]]
|mfd=[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|Miscellany for deletion debates]]
|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion debates]]
}}
If so, the templates might have to be moved to uw-xfd or similar. --Muchness 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Redirect templates
Hi i believe that the test templates (ex {{test}}, {{test2}} ect.) should be redirected to the appropriate WP:UTM template because the templates are on that page are designed to replace Template:TestTemplates--AFUSCO 00:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Why?
What was the point in redirecting {{bv}} to {{uw-vandalism3}}? They are completely different messages. Bad form IMO. KOS | talk 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Most if not all of the templates have been restored. KOS | talk 20:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Uw-npov1
The level 1 template for NPOV violations seems a tad accusatory when you include an article name as the first parameter (the sentence added when you specify a first parameter reads, "It appears you have not followed this policy at article name."). To avoid biting the newbies, I'd like to modify the sentence to carry a bit more explanation of the problem and focus less on the formalities of policy (a tone more appropriate for level 2). I'm thinking something like, "A contribution you made to article name appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem." Anyway, I wanted to bring this up here first since the UW template pages note that the texts have been carefully crafted, and I didn't want to change anything without some indication of consensus first. --DachannienTalkContrib 06:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Silence taken as consent. --DachannienTalkContrib 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
{{uw-disambig1}}
Hmm, first time I've found an instance of an anon user apparently making a misguided but good faith edit to a disambig to add their definition of the term before the disambig list (page was ORP).
I've tagged his talk page with a message pointing out that he should create a new article and add a link on the disambig, although in this case I think he's looking to add a non-definition rather than anything else, but I was at a loss as to which of the standard warnings would be most appropriate.
It wasn't obviously a test edit, may have been nonsense or vandalism but assuming good faith means I assume not, and I wasn't able to identify a template that seemed "right". Any suggestions? Do we need a template to cover "creating an article on a disambiguation page"? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 22:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say this is an unusual enough situation that a personal message is preferable to a template.--Kubigula (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- When I have run into this issue, I have used {{uw-test1}} if the addition definition was made by an anon/new editor, or a personalized message if the editor is not new, but not familiar with WP:NOT. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
appropriate warning template for future date of death?
I came across this edit today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Zinn&diff=prev&oldid=163568953
i couldn't figure out what the appropriate warning template would be, so i just put the standard uw-vandalism3 ("Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Howard Zinn, you will be blocked from editing.")
in this case, i think posting a future date of death for a public figure might warrant a more severe action, like immediate blocking, especially for a user with such a colored history in posting vandalism. is there a template that might cover this case, where not-so-thinly veiled threats are made? Theroyalweman (talk|user|contribs) 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and blocked the IP based on the history and the ignoring of warnings. It's a school address, so I think it's just kids fooling around. The deliberate error series ({{uw-e1}}, {{uw-e3}}) is good for this situation. If it was an actual death threat, that should be escalated to another forum - perhaps WP:AN/I.--Kubigula (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Non-admins issuing warnings
Hi, everyone. I have an issue which may have been discussed in the past but I believe deserves a fresh look. Specifically, it has to do with non-admins issuing level 3 and above warnings to other editors. Recently an editor issued myself an another person level 3 warning accusing us of vandalism. We had made exactly one edit each which contributed to the articles. Naturally, we were nervous about this admin issuing us such stern warnings for a legit edit. When we went to complain about this we were told he is indeed *not* an admin. We were confused how and why a non-admin can ussing a level 3 warning (which says "you will be blocked..."). Moreover, it is clear he used this warning in order to gain a psychological advantage in his warn. I submit that non-admins not be allowed to issue warnings. Telling people to simply ignore it fosters an environment where new and casual editors (like myself) become nervous and scared about further editing attempts. Thank you. Bstone 01:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Blanking vandalism and engaging in edit wars are warnable and blockable actions... Other than the fact that it was you who was warned, what has changed to warrant a new discussion on this oft-trod issue? Leuko 02:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Leuko, are you kidding me? All I made was my first edit on the AUA page, and I got this intimidating "level 3" warning on my Talk page. It basically said, "you will be blocked..." My second option was to do a consensus. But guess what? I left a message on AUA Talk page that was left unanswered for 24 hours. It was apparent you weren't ready for any kind of consensus for whatever reasons, so I had to resort to my choices of reporting you to the admin forum. Basically, if I changed the page, I would be threatened with banning. If I post on the Talk page, my request goes unanswered. If you were in my place, what would have you done? By the way, we did a consensus and the results were as expected - the majority was against you. If one not only makes unsound judgments, but also threatens people with banning - that's a very dangerous combination. DrGladwin 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- You don't need to be an admin to warn someone a block is coming, you just need to be correct about it a reasonable amount of time. Admins have special powers, not special authority. Normal editors have just as much responsibility to enforce policy. If a person has a history of leaving incorrect warnings, leave a warning on their talk page about it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1 == 2, this is the current situation, but as you read in my above first post I suggest that these warnings should not be available for regular editors to issue. Specifically, they insinuate that the warning editor (Leuko in the above situation) actually has the ability to ban someone. Imagine our surprise when we found this not to be the case at all. Imagine how we felt when we were given this warning which was over the top by someone who has no ability to carry it out. I suggest that level 3 and above warnings not be available for non-admin editors to issue. Thank you. Bstone 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with the level 3 warning is that non-admin may be reluctant to use it. They may think that they can't block others so the threat is a potentially idle threat. It's true that it can be reported to AIV. However, the trouble with that is the admin's judgement can be different (either too stern and blocks even if the warning is falsely given or too lax and ignores warnings). In practice, it's not a great problem. However, it might be better to reword template level 3 to say "...steps will be taken to block you" rather than "you will be blocked". Archtransit 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the warned individual fails to heed the warning, then the warning editor just heads over to WP:AIV, reports the individual, and the next administrator to stop by will briefly review the situation and (if everything's kosher) block the user. A non-admin may not have the ability to place the block, but they have the ability to report the situation to those who do, and that's just as good. It seems to me that your issue is different from what you're suggesting as a solution, namely that you feel that some folks abuse the higher-level warnings when a lower-level warning will do. Conflating the two issues only makes it harder to resolve either one. --DachannienTalkContrib 06:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- (ec)Your suggestion is just not how things work here. Admins are not referee's and regular editors are just as allowed to enforce policy as anyone else. There are places they can go to have the block enforced. I think it should stay that way, and I think it is very much likely to stay that way. I read your comment in full. Users who abuse the warnings can be dealt with. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Editors who purposefully use (incorrect) warnings to intimidate other users, or who never learn how to use them with any accuracy may be subjected to community sanctions banning them from using warnings. However, with only 1,347 admins, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of vandals disallowing regular users from issuing level 3 and 4 warnings is simply not an option. Keep in mind that your situation is the exception, not the rule. Users are discouraged from skipping 2 or more warnings except in extreme circumstances. The Hybrid 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- (e/c)So you're suggesting because some one does not have the technical ability to enforce policy besides giving warnings, they should not even be able to tell blatant vandals what the result of their continued actions will be? Policy says: You vandalize, you get blocked. Why can non-admins not say what policy is? Wikipedia only has ~1300 admins, not all are active and many do not do vandalism patrol. I don't even know where to start to tell all of the problems this could cause. Mr.Z-man 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Editors who purposefully use (incorrect) warnings to intimidate other users, or who never learn how to use them with any accuracy may be subjected to community sanctions banning them from using warnings. However, with only 1,347 admins, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of vandals disallowing regular users from issuing level 3 and 4 warnings is simply not an option. Keep in mind that your situation is the exception, not the rule. Users are discouraged from skipping 2 or more warnings except in extreme circumstances. The Hybrid 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Mr Z, not sure if you read all what I wrote. I clearly wrote that in this case the editor who issued the warning was doing so entirely baselessly. He was unhappy with our edits (which were in no way vandalism) but immediately issued a level 3 vandalism warning. Naturally, this is frustrating and brings up a whole host of questions and issues which I present above. Again- the warning was used in an attempt to get myself and another editor to not edit an article, not because there was actual vandalism occurring. Bstone 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- No editor, admin or not is supposed to give incorrect warnings. But people make mistakes and we assume good faith, we're all human, nobody is perfect. Forbidding non-admins from issuing level 3 or 4 warnings is not going to help anything, it'll just make a ton of other problems a lot worse. I'm not saying you are a blatant vandal, but your suggestion would not allow warnings to be given to even the most blatant vandals, if the warning editor is not an admin. Mr.Z-man 06:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said before, if individual users abuse the warnings, then they can be dealt with individually. However, what all of us are trying to say is that banning non-admins from issuing warnings entirely is impractical. The Hybrid 06:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Mr Z, not sure if you read all what I wrote. I clearly wrote that in this case the editor who issued the warning was doing so entirely baselessly. He was unhappy with our edits (which were in no way vandalism) but immediately issued a level 3 vandalism warning. Naturally, this is frustrating and brings up a whole host of questions and issues which I present above. Again- the warning was used in an attempt to get myself and another editor to not edit an article, not because there was actual vandalism occurring. Bstone 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unless a user is leaving a warning that says "I personally will block you", this is a misperception on the part of the warned party. Non-issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- It recently fooled two of us who are casual editors here. Clearly, not a non-issue. Bstone 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- You've taken it to ANI, so they will deal with the editor individually if need be. Do you understand why banning regular users from issuing warnings is an impractical idea? The Hybrid 06:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Dachannien, The Hybrid and Mr. Z-man. THis reads more like two newer editors feel bullied, and instead of asking us to stop one bully, they want us to deputize some editors to have special powers (access to templates) when we could continue as we are now at wikipedia, allowing all to fix the prject, and encouraging editors to read up on major policies like vandalism. ThuranX 06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Never for a moment do I suggest that there should be no method for editors to issue warnings, but in my opinion they must be different from those that admins can issue. There should be a softer or different tone, different wording, etc. Otherwise it can (and has) been exploited by people who are looking for just another tool to solidify their edits and scare other editors away. Bstone 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- If someone goes around replacing page text with pictures of genitalia, we should not be replying to that with soft toned warnings. Especially if tey do it multiple times after receiving those soft toned warnings. The warning templates are designed to escalate. "it can (and has) been exploited by people who are looking for just another tool to solidify their edits and scare other editors away." - Just because 0.1% of the time the warnings are misused (if that) is not a reason to abandon the current system. Deal with the user, don't try to change the whole system. If after working fine for years your car doesn't start, do you go out immediately and buy a new car? No, you deal with the specific problem. Mr.Z-man 07:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Never for a moment do I suggest that there should be no method for editors to issue warnings, but in my opinion they must be different from those that admins can issue. There should be a softer or different tone, different wording, etc. Otherwise it can (and has) been exploited by people who are looking for just another tool to solidify their edits and scare other editors away. Bstone 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I can accept that. I hope that this specific problem is dealt with very quickly. Thank you. Bstone 07:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandal's recent edit that removed content
I'm a bit confused. I tried to warn an IP who removed content from Thomas and Friends - Season 1 but I couldn't figure what recent edit should be mentioned. Should be a last edit? TobytheTramEngine 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The current templates aren't designed to include a link to the actual edit. You can, however, reference the impacted article in the template, and that should hopefully be enough to make clear what edit you are referring to. In this case, you could use:
- {{subst:uw-delete1|Thomas and Friends - Season 1}}--~~~~.
- Alternately, you don't have to reference any article at all, though that can lead to confusion.--Kubigula (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
uw-delete1
I've been bold and changed the text of {{uw-delete1}} to:
- Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia.
- If this was a mistake, don't panic as the text has been restored from the page history. To check your work you can use the Preview or Show Changes buttons before you save.
- When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary. Discuss edits which are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page.
- 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.
The idea is to catch valid problems with should be reported on the talk page. Please let me know what you think (if there are any problems, feel free to revert and discuss here). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't really like it at first, but it's growing on me. It does offer more guidance, which is not a bad idea for a level one template. I would, however, suggest switching the order of the two bullet points.--Kubigula (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have to say, as someone who uses this template rather a lot, I'm not a fan of the bullet point style. Whilst I would not be against a rewording, I would suggest that this is made into the same format as the rest of the user warnings. It currently looks rather messy and out of place when on talk pages (in my opinion at least). Will (aka Wimt) 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- No!!! I appreciate the intent and the effect in its own little world, but looking at the bigger picture it makes it impossible to turn an unorganized mess of a talk page into something useable to those who are trying to determine a user's history at a glance. Please find a better way! --Kbh3rdtalk 00:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on the concerns above, I have changed it back to a single paragraph warning, while preserving most of h2g2bob's language. Any other concerns or comments?--Kubigula (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! ♥ It's a nice improvement from before h2g2bob started on it, and it should work well in this form. --Kbh3rdtalk 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Kubigula's edit - nicely done :) --h2g2bob (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Civility
Are there generally civility warning templates? I couldn't put my finger on them. Carlossuarez46 03:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is a general civility template or series. The AGF series ({{uw-agf1}} etc) is probably the closest thing.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, perhaps we ought to consider them. I encounter it off and on and it seems undue effort to try and construct something on the fly. Carlossuarez46 05:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Uw-test1
"Your test worked..." What if the test didn't work? Josh 03:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then it wouldn't be a test, it wouldn't have worked / been saved and we wouldn't have seen it, so no need to issue a comment on it. It's for first time editors, and where you see the ubiquitous asdasdjsdfhfhhfhkasklls which generally indicates someone is seeing if what they type appears in the article once saved. Khukri 08:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- If an anonymous user makes one of those sorts of edits and then immediately deletes their changes, I will often leave them a {{uw-selfrevert}} message. However, as always YMMV. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- What if someone added the following "HTML code" to an article: <fontcolor=blue>Test</fontcolor> Would we tell them their test worked? Josh 15:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, even though it's an assanine question, the temnplate is for the fact that they are doing editing tests to find out how wikipedia works in article space, not on whether the syntax of their test was correct or not. Also these templates are used for common occuring situations and do not cover every single perceivable possibility that could occur and in no way stop you from leaving a personal message, which would be the preferable option. Khukri 16:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Anon Vandal
Are there any "lower level" IP vandal warnings besides anon vandal? Anon vandal seems too harsh in most cases, but it would be nice to have, for example, uw-vandalism2 for IPs say: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as further warnings, temporary blocks, or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own." It seems like that would be more clear to anyone who didn't do the vandalism, but still uses the same IP. Mike6271 10:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes when {{uw-vandalism2}} appears to harsh, I will instead use {{uw-test2}}. Depending on the situation, {{uw-delete2}} or {{uw-error2}} could also be used. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Experienced users
I have been told at WP:ANI that these templates must not be used for experienced editors. Could the main page be amended to shew this? Thank you. DuncanHill 12:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I noted there, concencus is that WP:DTTR is a useful essay, not a guideline. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Kralizec, it was A Train's comment that led me to post here. BTW, I'd never heard of DTTR before. DuncanHill 12:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, the only way I found out about the DTTR essay was when someone told me I was rude for using a {{uw-warn}} template on a long time editor. While I am on record [1] as objecting to DTTR`s elevation to guideline status, I do not disagree with the belief that personalized messages work better for established editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Suggest a slightly stronger wording for Uw-vandalism1, something at least to the extent of 'if you continue, you may be blocked'
Vandalism is, by definition, purposeful, so it's really hard to 'assume good faith' when someone takes an article and replaces it with the word 'fuck' 300 times. HalfShadow 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- When someone does that, don't use {{uw-vandalism1}}. {{uw-vandalism4im}} could be appropriate in that case, or start with level 2 for less clear-cut cases where good faith cannot be assumed. Anomie 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's useful to have a soft warning available to deal with what may well be someone's first attempt to edit Wikipedia. It's quite possible they didn't realize the software would really allow them to replace the article with the word fuck. Personally, I like to start with the level one template unless the vandalism is hateful, and I'd estimate that people stop after the one warning at least half the time. Moreover, Anomie is absolutely correct that there is no requirement that you begin with a level one warning, particularly in situations where it is impossible to assume good faith.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well,no, I generally start with level two anyway, since, as I said, vandalism is pretty much purposeful. I was just saying having a 'good faith' warning is a bit odd for something like vandalism, that's all. When someone throws a rock through your window, it's hard to believe they didn't mean to... HalfShadow 03:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Talk softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy is the art of saying, "nice doggy" while searching for a rock to throw. And so on. You can still sound nice while not feeling it. Think of Dolores Umbridge, smiling and sweetly saying, "Welcome to Wikipedia..." with her ice-cold heart. My point being, it doesn't hurt to keep first contact, especially, soft. As a "fer example", yesterday I used a {{uw-vand1}} on someone who had made 5 serial unconstructive edits, and today I received this reply:
- Oops - I was wondering how things worked on wikipedia. I did not intend for it to be a bad thing. I meant to undo it but I forgot. I'm sorry and I will not do it again. Sorry to bother you'
- A nice resonse, so I'm glad I didn't bite the newcomer. For those who really deserve it, you can start with uw-vand2 or greater. (This from someone who finds himself more and more curmudgeonly from vandal fighting.) --Kbh3rdtalk 03:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Talk softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy is the art of saying, "nice doggy" while searching for a rock to throw. And so on. You can still sound nice while not feeling it. Think of Dolores Umbridge, smiling and sweetly saying, "Welcome to Wikipedia..." with her ice-cold heart. My point being, it doesn't hurt to keep first contact, especially, soft. As a "fer example", yesterday I used a {{uw-vand1}} on someone who had made 5 serial unconstructive edits, and today I received this reply:
- "It's quite possible they didn't realize the software would really allow them to replace the article with the word fuck [repeated 200 times]." LOL, I suppose you're right, people can be that dumb. I personally don't understand why someone would even try that in good faith, instead of "Will this work?" or something inoffensive. Anomie 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- My own rule of thumb: usage of any of the seven dirty words is the prime determining factor on whether an editor receives a {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-vandalism1}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Guidance on signatures
This would be a good place to point out to novices (like me!) that you should use a signature when warning a user. (At least, I believe that's what I'm supposed to do, from reading other pages.) If I were more certain of that, I'd even be bold and edit the article myself. Sadly, no. JayLevitt 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there any versions of this warning which do not include an ethnic slur?
This is driving me nuts! Jacob Haller 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? What slur on which warning? --Kralizec! (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I believe he is referring to Vandal as the "ethnic slur". I have to admit that's a new one to me.--Kubigula (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any more Vandals roaming around to object to being slurred. —QuicksilverT @ 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is a grain of truth in what Jacob wrote. We do use the word "vandal" a lot. Regardless if there is still an ethnicity that identifies itself with that term, it is not the best way to achieve our goal. It's always more productive to focus on what a person did, instead of calling them any names. Therefore, I write simply: "your edit was not helpful". I propose to change that in the templates, too. — Sebastian 06:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the templates get changed in this fashion, let me know. I'll just fork the ones that mention "vandalism" so that I and others can continue using them. Why we shouldn't call a spade a spade - and call vandalism vandalism - is beyond me. --DachannienTalkContrib 12:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- As with Hydra, to take offence with a word who's derivation is 2000 years old is taking it to the extreme, and to use terms like ethnic slur is taking political correctness sensibilities just a tad to far. Khukri 07:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Please, folks, don't fall in the trap of discussing if this is or isn't an issue of political correctness. As I wrote above, that's irrelevant in this case. Instead, we should simply be concise and to the point. "Your edit can be seen as
<name calling>" is obviously less concise than "Your edit was not helpful". Using something that only "could be seen as" just adds an unnecessary level of distraction and complexity. Let's just simply say how we see it. — Sebastian 07:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Please, folks, don't fall in the trap of discussing if this is or isn't an issue of political correctness. As I wrote above, that's irrelevant in this case. Instead, we should simply be concise and to the point. "Your edit can be seen as
- We refer to vandals as vandals, true, but the warnings say things like unconstructive edits may be considered vandalism - that is not exactly the same as saying "you're a vandal". I think it hammers home the point, especially when we're talking about 2nd, 3rd or 4th warnings. Is there any evidence that gentle requests work better than warnings with a recidivist? Very often "your edit was not helpful" is far too much of an understatement. And the first dictionary definition of vandal is one who willingly defaces or destroys property, which is exactly what we're talking about - intellectual property. Seems like the right word to me. (The second refers to the Vandals, who, like the Huns and Visigoths, haven't been making much noise since the 5th century.) Tvoz |talk 07:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're only feeding the trolls! You're asking for evidence, but do you have evidence for your claim that calling people names works better? Experience with trolls points to the opposite. For some time I used "your edit was disruptive", but I felt that that only encourages those whose goal is to disrupt Wikipedia. — Sebastian 07:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I said above Sebastian, you are not calling them names, you are not saying you are a vandal you are saying what you did was vandalism, the target of the noun is not the person, but their contributions. I think we have assumed pretty good faith with the lvl1 warnings, but once you get to lvl4 lets not beat around the bush here, what they are doing is vandalism. Khukri 08:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think your distinction holds water: It's only a superficial grammatical difference if you say somebody did X or call them an X-doer. But mine probably doesn't hold water, either. "Vandalism/vandal" is closer to a well defined term than to a slur, so I'm striking the "name calling" part. I don't see why you write "once you get to lvl4": {{uw-vand2}} already talks of vandalism. — Sebastian 08:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're worried about offending a group that's been dead for a thousand years because they happen to be the origin of an English word that that has nothing to do with the people anymore. Ethnic slur... that's just ridiculous, and purely an attempt at inciting... something. Ignore it. Don't even respond to me.
Of course forget the Vandals which I have to hope was a joke, but sorry, Sebastian - I just don't see how we're calling names. "Your edit was not helpful and if you keep it up you may be blocked" doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? "Not helpful" is assuming a lot more good faith than some of these folks are entitled to. Tvoz |talk 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good point; it doesn't fit with the warning. Also, your right that "name calling" was exaggerated, and I'm striking that part.
- I still think we should write something that we don't have to wrap in weasel words like "Your edit can be seen as ...", but I guess I'm too tired to get involved in a discussion like this now - Good night! — Sebastian 08:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is the look of disbelief I have over the fact that we are discussing political correctness as it pertains to a people who have not existed in over a millennia. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Should we notify the University of Idaho, which uses "Vandals" as their athletic team nickname? Shall we organize protest mobs to march in front of their stadium or arena? What does Jesse Jackson have to say about all this? Is there a way we can blame all this on Rush Limbaugh? Puh-LEEEEZE. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Puh-LEEEEZE., Realkyhick and Kralizec!, read the discussion first and then judge it. That's really something that annoys me here at Wikipedia: People who only read the headline or the first paragraph and then already feel they are smarter than everyone else, whose contributions they didn't even read. (I'm excluding myself here; I made some dumb mistakes in this discussion, but there were enough good contributions.) — Sebastian 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is anyone able to produce evidence that the "Vandal" people are perpetrators of "bad edits". Surely the template MUST be changed from "Vandalism" to "Bad Edits". Canterberry 01:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually SebastianHelm, before I posted my above message, I had to read the entire thread twice because the first time I read it, I thought the entire thing was a WP:BJAODN refugee. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've read the whole thread repeatedly and I'm left with three possible explanations for what's going on here: 1. This is really a conversation about whether referring to people as vandals is inappropriate name-calling, and the whole "ethnic" thing has nothing to do with it. 2. Some people are really bewildered about the world and think that we're somehow insulting the Vandals, despite the fact that they stopped existing almost 1500 years ago. 3. This is a joke about the idea that someone could think that. So, which is it? I'm beginning to think that we're not all having the same conversation and it's all of them at once. Pinball22 13:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- The answer to your question is "yes." But seriously, I agree with Khukri and think we should call a spade a spade. Taking my last vandalism revert and warning [2] as an example, while I have no doubt that in this politically correct era someone would take offense at being likened to a "vandal" ("oh noes, I have been impugned!"), "vandalism" really is the best word to describe that edit. If it quacks like a duck ... --Kralizec! (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
{{uw-talkinarticle}}
Would anyone be opposed to me adding a line in the "please talk in the talk page" template that would instruct new users to click on the "discussion" tap at the top of their screens? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)