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)
Using templates
Is the number 1 supposed to show up at the beginning on all these? Seems out of place when warning them. --Xiahou 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read here for details. Regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 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. ZueJaytalk 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? -- Nerketur 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bring it up on WT:UTM you'll get more opinion there, but I don't see why not. Khukri - 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to someone for following up on this request. It is so much easier to use. I lost track of this over the last couple weeks while on wikibreak. Thanks for following thru/up. There are templates here I didn't know we had! ZueJaytalk 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Self revert template
Could we get a template for self revert tests? WilliamKF 04:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- There already is,
{{uw-selfrevert|thanks for reverting your own tests}}. It's a fairly busy page but almost everything we have is listed here WP:UTM. Regards, Khukri 11:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Great, thanks, I added this to the project page. WilliamKF 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted your change as you added it to the multi-level warnings page, for warnings that have incremental levels. It needs to be added to the single level warnings. As you look through it you'll see that the warnings aren't harmonised and do not have the same look and tidyness that the multi level warnings do. I'm back from wikibreak tomorrow and next week I intend to attack the second part of WP:UW harmonisation program. If you look here you'll see most of the templates that weren't covered by the original program and the recommended actions. Cheers Khukri 09:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- And Khukri has put it on the single level page too already. Thanks. 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
Attacking the person in his biography, not the editor.
I've experienced an edit in a biography which the editor attacked the person in the biography not an editor, I only found here the {{subst:uw-npa1|Article}} template so I used the {{subst:uw-biog1|Article}} instead. Why isn't there such a template for attacking a person in his own biography ???
- Depends on what is being written, but sound like the {{uw-defam1}} series could be used here. Khukri 11:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Moving the block templates was a bad idea
I know I used this page as a reference tab in my browser when policing pages, now I have to open two... and I don't see a practical reason. --Bobak 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Previously, we had two pages:
| page 1 | page 2 |
|---|---|
|
|
That arrangement was illogical. Either--
- we create a details page with all user warning and block templates
- we give each category its own page (present solution); or
- we organize the pages based on a logical classification (such as one page for both multi- and single- level warnings/notices, and another page for blocks).
I would be pleased to assist in any of these solutions. Convenience should be the next consideration, so we should go with whichever solution is the most convenient. Bsherr 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw the addition of a link to the blocking templates page placed at the bottom of this page. I think that's a fine temporary measure. My next project will be to place a "contents box" of links to all the template pages at the top of each page. Bsherr 20:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC) ==NOR==- NOR was added. what is the consensus that the addition of NOR would in the absence of other considerations warrant a block? DGG (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
{{uw-notyours3}}?
What is the right template to use for someone who maliciously edits other people's comments (including warnings) on their userpage? {{notyours}} assumes the edits were for "clarity, spelling or grammar", the {{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? - ∅ (∅), 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- {{uw-tpv2}}? You can easily add any clarification after the template. — 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
original research?
I just noticed that there is currently not a warning series for people adding original research to articles. I'd be interested in collaborating on creating a series analogous to the NPOV series.Ngchen 15:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- {{Nor}} and {{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. {{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.--Kubigula (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- In addition to Kubigula`s suggestion of {{uw-unsourced1}}, I have also found {{uw-biog1}} to be useful in some similar situations. --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"? --Lambiam 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- One editor's garbage is another editor's Picasso. If you feel that an edit really was vandalism rather that a test, use a {{uw-vandalism1}} warning rather than a {{uw-test1}}. Personally, for a first edit issue, I generally use whichever warning is most appropriate for the situation, but the "Big Five" ({{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-error1}}, {{uw-test1}},{{uw-unsourced1}}, and {{uw-vandalism1}}) normally work quite well for me 95% or more of the time. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"User reported" templates
I recently came across Template:Vandrep, which I hadn't previously noticed because it isn't listed on our page here. Has there been any thought to adding a "fifth level" (and I use that phrase in quotes because this class of templates isn't so much a warning as a notification) that includes this class of templates, which notify users that they have been reported to be blocked. These templates seem to me to serve a useful purpose in that they notify users of exactly what action resulted in their being reported. Thoughts? Bsherr 16:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there used to be a similar non-uw template, but it was deleted after much discussion. Anomie 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, that was interesting reading. The discussion made some good points. Even though the user doesn't find out what the block is for, I think the point made in the discussion that it is counterproductive to have such a message and a failure to produce administrator action is compelling. I may be inspired to TfD that template. Bsherr 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- The blocking notice will tell them why they are being blocked (vandalism, spam etc), though perhaps not which edit broke the camels back. I think that's sufficient as they are typically being blocked for a pattern of disruptive editing rather than for any specific edit. I'd support a TfD for the same reasons as in the prior discussion.--Kubigula (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Want to report back here that I did a TfD on the template, and had a nice chat with its author, who was in my shoes asking this question just a few weeks ago. But he's a more technical guy and decided to build the template, as opposed to me, who just finds the stuff and asks lots of questions. So I showed him the discussion threads you shared with me, and we had another convert. Thanks. Bsherr 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"Summary" table of warnings
Would there be support for deleting the summary table of warnings that appears before the complete list? I suggest it because the first three lines in the summary table are exactly the same as the first three lines in the complete table. The only other entry in the summary table is for the spam links templates, which in the complete table appears just a few lines below the top three. Deleting the summary table would cut a header level, and reduce the length of the page (and reduce the size of the page by 3KB). I think the redundancy may be initially confusing to new viewers, especially since the first three lines of each are repeats. I'll hang on for comments before "being bold." Warm regards. Bsherr 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose the point of the top four is to hit the highlights so that someone looking doesn't get put off by the number of templates. However, I personally agree that it's a bit repetitive given that the main ones are first on the larger list anyway. So, I'd support your notion.--Kubigula (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- No objections from me. Perhaps the current duplicated setup is because the warnings used to be ordered alphabetically (so {{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-test1}}, and {{uw-vandalism1}} were not at the top of their category like they are now). --Kralizec! (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that explanation is likely. Since the table is [now] organized into categories, alphabetizing isn't going to move any one template down too far on the list to be readily seen. Since I've heard from you both, our main freeholders on this page, I'm gonna go ahead! Bsherr 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Non-notable persons / Vanity Spam
What would be the most appropriate warning template for users who add clearly non-notable persons (most likely their own name) to Wikipedia articles. I'm quite surprised that I was unable to find any vandalism templates dedicated to this incredibly common occurrence, excessively prevalent in lists of "Notable residents" from most cities/towns and lists of "Notable alumni" from schools of every level.
If no such template exists then I'd like to strongly suggest such a template be added because vanity spam (I know that phrase is discouraged but I'm using it for simplicity since I'm not targeting any particular individual) is inclusive of breaking so many different Wikipedia guidelines. I would not be totally wrong to add all of the following templates to a vanity spammer's usertalk page, each time they do it:
- Vandalism (too general)
- Lack of Notablility (this template doesn't really exist but it should.)
- Creating autobiographies (this template exists but is primarily intended for articles rather than content bits, but it still applies)
- Conflict of Interest
- Not adhering to neutral point of view
- Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion
- Addition of unsourced material without proper citations
- Creating hoaxes
Although I wouldn't necessarily be wrong to add all of those templates, that would be quite excessive, which is why I'm requesting a vanity spam warning template should be created and implemented that more appropriately addresses this common form of vandalism. --Fife Club 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Since these sorts of pages are normally speedy deletion candidates via A7, I normally let {{nn-warn}} do the talking for me. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't mean for when somebody creates a whole vanity article. I meant when somebody adds their own name (or anybody's non-notable name) to a legitimate article. Among many examples, an article on a city that has has a section for notable residents, and some vandal adds their own name to that list, likely with a red non-link. Or there's a legitimate article on a particular high school, and some jerk keeps putting his own name in the article as a notable alumnus (including "Class of 2009", proving he/she is not notable) and keeps putting it back in after a dozen reverts. So I was talking about needing a template for those who add vanity spam content to existing legitimate articles, which I think is a very common occurrence. --Fife Club 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whooops, sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that we do not really have any warnings that address this sort of issue directly. In the past I have used either {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-unsourced1}} and escalated from there if the editor was persistent in re-adding. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Use Template:Nn-test. It's a single-level template, I think, and it corresponds to about a level one. Maybe extending it out to 4 levels would be a project? Bsherr 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good one. Thanks. I just added it to my cheat sheet. However I didn't notice your suggested template before I had already just created my own personal "vanity spam templates" on my user page. They're not real templates (just a bunch of code) and they're currently just intended for me to easily copy and paste, but what do you think of these message templates? (You should have no problem finding them on the page.)
- --Fife Club 22:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- They're graphically appealing, which is always nice to see. I love the use of icons, which NN-test doesn't have. What follows is some criticism, but I want to emphasize how much I respect the effort, and the interest!
- It looks like the templates combine COI and NN concerns. I'm not sure that's the best way to go. Assume a situation where a trivial name is added to a notable residents section. COI is hard to be sure of, because we often don't know for sure whether the name added is that of the editor or not. More often, we'll know that it's NN per se, or that it's NN by reason of no context. COI and NN are both grounds to revert the edit and warn the editor, but I propose that there's no need to cite both when just one will do, and I'd rather cite the one that I'm more sure of.
- Example 1: if I received a combined COI/NN template message for just a NN transgression, I might think it wrongly given because I didn't commit a COI transgression. Example 2: if I received a combined COI/NN template message because the reverter was 100% sure of NN and 50% sure of COI, but I the original editor think there's no COI, I again might consider the template wrongly given, and I don't learn the NN lesson.
- I also still prefer the language in Template:Nn-test because it applies not just to names of people, but to other NN contributions, like bands, clubs, companies, etc. I think it might be better to have the versitility.
- That being said, I think NN-test is an old template, from the old system, because it has the test(n) style, and refers to level 5 (which now does not exist) in the documentation. It also doesn't have the new "templatenotice" function in it. If we adopt it for this purpose, it will have to be updated.
- But NN-test still doesn't solve the COI issue. You mentioned in your original post a COI template. Is there one? You also mentioned the autobiography notice template. I dislike this template, because it starts out with wording suggesting it might be used for all autobiographical edits, but then includes a chunk that's specific to whole article autobiography, mentioning AfD, etc. If someone simply makes an self-referencing edit, rather than a whole article, the template seems about 50% irrelevant. And as described above, the more irrelevant the template is to the transgression, the more likely the recipient will ignore it or assume it was given in error. I don't think NPOV quite covers it. Adding references to oneself isn't the same as personal analysis or commentary. So, there's a second project, maybe? Bsherr 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I made those two primarily based on what I keep finding in my situations. I guess it's because I have so many towns and cities in my watch list. What you use totally depends on the specific situation, which may not always be obvious. In any case, my thoughts on the first one were as a first offense / maybe they didn't know / here's more information template. It also includes the FYI just in case that was their own name. The second template is totally direct and only for blatant vandalism and repeat offenders. But those were designed just with me in mind. I'd love it if an official template were added that addressed the issue(s). Maybe you're right that it should be two separate templates - one for NN (but specific to people), and another for suspected cased where they are adding their own name. I'd love to see it, and I'll ditch my homemade stuff then. :) --Fife Club 03:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I like either {{nn-test}} or your templates, because all of them misapply Wikipedia:Notability: Wikipedia:Notability applies to article topics, not article content. I don't know that there really are any guidelines on who should be in a "list of notable residents" section, but that would be the guideline to refer to. I'll have to think about this for a while to suggest better wording, though; sorry I can't be more help. Also, BTW, don't edit {{nn-test}} to match the new style lest you bring the wrath of the anti-new-style cabal (TINC) ;) Anomie 12:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh, that's a good point. I was so focused on the right template, I missed the policy argument. Ok, my backup position--as it applies to non-notable people, violates WP:BLP; as it applies to other non-notable "proper nouns", WP:NOT#DIR. The policy proscribing NN items in lists of notable "proper nouns" is surely found in the penumbra of the two aforementioned policies. Now we just need a template that says that... We can build it, we have the technology. We have the capacity to build the world's first WP:BLP/NOT#DIR template. NN-test will be that template. Better than it was before. Better, stronger, substituted. As for the anti-new-style cabal-- we're a project; do they have their own userbox?
- I'm having a little fun here, but I do seriously believe BLP and NOT#DIR can cover this issue. Bsherr 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Definately WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO, and while WP:BLP applies I'm not so sure it should be mentioned from a WP:BEANS perspective—since so many of these lists are unsourced, it's a great opportunity for someone to be pointy and misinterpret the meaning of "contentious". WP:TRIVIA might also apply, since these sort of things are rather trivial. There's also an argument to be made that a non-wikt:notable person is not relevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the topic of the article (WP:5 if there isn't a better policy/guideline). Is it time for my AAAAA meeting yet? Anomie 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Infobox colors
Do we have any warning templates for vandals who change infobox colors? It seems to be a new fad that I've been seeing. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- WP:MOS includes a section on infoboxes. If the edits are against the guidelines of the MOS, use the MOS series of warnings. If they're not counter to MOS, I think it might be difficult to characterize the changes as vandalism as opposed to a legitimate difference of opinion over appearance of the infobox (we have to assume good faith, even if the edits test the limits of that assumption). If it's continuing, you can run the count on 3RR. Bsherr 01:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome
I think the welcoming templates on this page should be better highlighted. It seems to me that if a new user does something bad he is immediately jumped on, but if a new user does something good he is ignored. BradMajors 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- While I understand and generally agree with what you are saying, I admit that I almost never use the welcome templates on this page. The most I ever do is follow the link to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I would support going at it with less in the way of examples, more in the way of guidance. We currently just provide a list of welcome templates, and our list is inferior to that of the welcoming committee. I think a good change would be to cut down the examples and link directly to the welcoming committee page, and in the same space give guidance for using the templates. I suggest a statement such as "Welcome templates provide instruction on and links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines that the newest users may be unfamiliar with, and may be used to supplement appropriate user warning template messages." Bsherr 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"M"inor?
Is there a reason why only the "m" in "minor" is in bold in Template:Uw-minor? -- HiEv 03:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It's an homage to the bold lower-case "m" denoting minor edits in page histories. Bsherr 04:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah! It looked like a mistake of some sort, but since it had survived several edits I thought that there might be a reason for it. Thanks for the explanation. -- HiEv 04:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Proposed new user warning template
I've had quite a few occasions where I've noticed a user leaving a message for another user on their userpage, rather than their talk page. Going in and moving the message across doesn't take much time, but then writing out the usual "By the way you accidentally left your message on the userpage rather than the talk page, I've moved it across for you, watch out for that in the future" message on the user's talk page takes up the time.
I've had a look through Category:User warning templates, and whilst I can see a template for warning someone about leaving talk in articlespace, I can't see that there's a similar warning about leaving talk on userspace, not user talk space.
I've come up with the template (based on one of the other warnings) which is currently in my Sandbox at User:Gilesbennett/Sandbox - the versions shown either include a link to the specific user's pages in question (where that detail is inserted as part of the template usage) or doesn't (if left blank).
My question is (i) have I just reinvented the wheel, and if so, where's the wheel? And (ii) if I think this is a sensible template to include in Category:User warning templates, do I just create the template in templatespace and add the appropriate category tag to it?
Thanks in advance for any comments. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 16:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite of Template:uw-coi
I've rewritten this, for the following reasons:
- The template is designed to be used to guide likely COI editors. So it needs to clearly do so. But when I read it, the previous version probably didn't in fact guide them all that well.
- It now states specifically - 1/ the core general policies applicable to a COI issue, 2/ the core requirements of WP:COI and practical advice what to do, and 3/ further resources. Plus a friendly start and end.
- It's a lot more supportive and less "BITEy", whilst also being far clearer as to what they need to know, where they stand, and what we need of them.
I've edited this as a BRD rewrite, since the version I saw here before just didn't really seem to be as helpful as it could be (I'm using it on someone's talk page and it just wasn't a message I'd have wanted to leave anybody, which defeats the whole aim of a user-warn template).
I hope nobody will object but as with all BRD's, if anyone does, please don;t take offence, just revert, move it here, explain why, discuss -- and let me know so I can contribute.
But I hope folks will like it, and see it as a good improvement.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (talk • contribs)
- I appreciate the comprehensiveness of the template and the motivation for it, but I'm concerned about the length of the template. (It's much longer than the typical warning templates!)
- As far as I know, we don't have a guideline for the content (as distinguished from the design) of user warning templatees (but there really ought to one). There is pattern: templates contain a concise description of what was wrong, and wikilinks to the complete policy/guideline and how to conform edits to it.
- I'm not aware of any user warning template that itself includes recommendations for conforming to the policy/guideline, except the line in some warnings reminding users to conduct test edits in a sandbox, or to generally edit constructively. Even allowing that, the recommendation is no more than one sentence. I suspect the reason for this is that it is very difficult to completely address the topic of recommendations to conform in such a small space (and that we assume at least some users just need the warning, not the reeducation!). I recognize a good attempt to do so in this template, but I'm not sure it's the best course of action.
- I don't often talk about server storage (We do what we want and size be darned, right?)...but I'm going to talk about server storage. It's simply more efficient to provide a link to a policy/guideline than it is to include it in the template and post it each time on a user talk page. The latter approach will consume more resources.
- I'm also concerned with the inclusion of "general content policies" in the template. I've mentioned in a past thread the concept of ensuring that our UW templates are as versatile as possible. I would be shy to use this template with a more seasoned user because it mentions the general policies, which could seem patronizing or suggest the warning is for more than COI (such as suggesting the user isn't following the general policies). We have a wide variety of welcome templates (which we were just asked to do more to promote) that explain the basic Wikipedia policies. I'd prefer having the option of pairing a welcome template with a more limited COI warning than having a COI warning that combines both.
- I appreciate the hard work that went into editing the template. I wish I had an opportunity to comment on it before or during its revision. Visually, it looks great. I hope we can have a good discussion about the right amount of content to make it most effective. Warm regards. Bsherr 23:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about server space, but most people on the receiving end of that template will have their eyes glaze over at the sight of that huge block of text. Even the previous version IMO might be a bit large, but at least justifiable. A UW warning isn't meant to take the place of a welcome template in pointing a new editor to all the policies and guidelines they need to get started, it just points out that something specific was wrong and links to the specific places that explain the appropriate practices.
- If I were to rewrite it (starting from the old version), I'd probably trim back the bulleted list and mention that proposing edits on the talk page for others to implement is a good way to avoid COI (if it works). I'd aim for no more on-screen lines than the current version uses, and less would be better. Anomie 02:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Question
Is there a warning message for users (vandal IP addresses and accounts) who blank their user talk pages (supposedly already full of warning messages)? The Chronic 05:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:UW/FAQ#How about creating a user warning template.... Anomie 05:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- While that standard may be reasonable for user account talk pages, since they "own" their user talk page, is it also reasonable for IP address user talk pages? Technically the person using that IP address doesn't own it in the same way that they could own an account, so might that kind of template be acceptable if only used on IP addresses' user talk pages? Keep in mind that blanking an IP addresses' user talk page could remove other information from the page that might be important to other users of that IP address or other Wikipedia users. -- HiEv 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Uw-unsourced1
I'm curious why the BLP verbiage was incorporated into this template. When BLP is not involved, the warning message appears to be off-topic, since BLP is so strongly emphasized. I would suggest putting this one back to the way it was. BLP has its own set of warning templates and, if anything, these could more simply read "Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, any statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you." Or, alternatively, give Uw-unsor1 an "opt out" parameter, whereby the BLP portion is omitted if and only if the parameter is set (e.g. blp="no"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)