::I like these, but could some or all of the also link to [[WP:SPAM]] since that is the basic guideline on what is improper advertising. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::I like these, but could some or all of the also link to [[WP:SPAM]] since that is the basic guideline on what is improper advertising. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Hm. We really should have named the template that is {{tl|uw-spam1}}, {{tl|uw-link1}}. I tried to avoid linking to [[WP:SPAM]], thinking that it was covered by the {{tl|uw-spam}} series. Given that, we still want to add that link somehow? [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]</sup> § 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Hm. We really should have named the template that is {{tl|uw-spam1}}, {{tl|uw-link1}}. I tried to avoid linking to [[WP:SPAM]], thinking that it was covered by the {{tl|uw-spam}} series. Given that, we still want to add that link somehow? [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]</sup> § 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I would think so, yes. {{tl|uw-spam1}} is really {{tl|uw-spamlink1}}, and this one couuld perhaps be called {{tl|uw-spampage1}}, (and 2 and 3...) but I don't find the names a major problem. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that the uw-copyright series was deleted and redirected to {{cv}}. Did I miss something? I have mixed feelings about having a single issue template here. It is a bit harsh for newcommers in my opinion, they don't know they are doing something wrong. (Sorry if I bring a point that has already been discussed, I couldn't find it in the archives :)) -- lucasbfrtalk 13:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two templates, {{Nothanks}} (or {{Nothanks-sd}}) and {{Cv}}, which were listed here before. More than that however, is inappropriate. If someone continues to upload copyrighted material after two warnings (really after one), they cannot be allowed to continue to do so and it cannot be built into the official sort of system created here that they be given five opportunities, with a warning after each one, to commit illegal actions on Wikipedia. I have now redirected {{uw-copyright1}} to {{Nothanks}} instead; it also happens to be much more explanatory and helpful than the new {{uw-copyright1}} which was apparently invented without any reference to already existing templates. —Centrx→talk • 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought a bit about it, I will try to make a 2 levels templates, level 1 being AGF (a mix between the previous lv1 and nothanks) and level 4 being basically {{Cv}}. What do you think? -- lucasbfrtalk 09:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ripped of the 2 old templates. Here's the result. I propose to use the first one for level 1 and the second one will be level 4. levels 2 and 3 would redirect to level 4. What do you think? -- lucasbfrtalk 17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind (I hated the idea of having a 2 lv template) and went bold, recreating a single issue {{uw-copyright}} that I hope will please everyone. -- lucasbfrtalk 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to squeeze mention of "not linking to copyright violations either" into one of these templates, or to create a new singlelevel one for such purpose? Thanks :) --Quiddity 19:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would type a personal message to the user in question, or use the spam templates if the linking is clearly inappropriate, but some people might find such a template useful? -- lucasbfrtalk 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template signature error
Whenever I use any of {{uw-block1}} , {{uw-block2}} or {{uw-block3}} it messes up my signature. It clips everything but the "Email" link. Have a look in my sandbox to see what I mean. What I do is sign after the template, but it is a bit of a problem. Does this happen for anyone else, if not does anyone know what in my sig triggers it so that I can change it? The code for my sig is:
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">[[User:James086|]]</font><sup>[[User talk:James086|<font color="#006400">Talk</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/James086|<font color="#700000">Email</font>]]</sup>
Yes, you could have read it from the edit box but it would be mixed with everything else then. Thanks, James086Talk|Email 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the problem is the vertical bar.
<font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">[[User:James086|]]</font>
<sup>[[User talk:James086|<font color="#006400">Talk</font>]]|
[[Special:Emailuser/James086|<font color="#700000">Email</font>]]</sup>
It causes an "ifelse" statement to become screwed up. Replacing the "|" with either "|" or "{{!}}" will fix the problem. GracenotesT § 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It works now, thanks a lot. James086Talk | Email 09:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new warning template {{uselanguage}} to tag user talk pages. It has one parameter that is the language code. It will ideally give a warning in the language of the user, but will work with all language codes pointing to the correct WP. It is similar to the family of the contrib-xx1 templates, but can easily be expanded. Andreas (T) 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This is great! We should probably add uw- to the beginning and have this take the place of uw-english. --TeckWizParlateContribs@ 02:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it is substituted, however, it will result in a mess of superfluous code, although appear fine. I suggest that we clean it up by requiring substitution, or else give an error message. GracenotesT § 04:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it doesn't already exist in some form, I am going to create this new user message template, {{Articlesig}}, in about a week if there are no objections. (The design happens to be lifted from {{noprotection}}.)
Proper signature use
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a common mistake for beginners, and it has since (most likely) been corrected. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should only (and always) use your signature after contributing to talkpages, the Village Pump, or other discussion pages. (For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these, see What is an article?) Thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience!
That's cool. I've been using test1 and adding a sentence after, which is a bit akward and doesn't link to all the appropriate pages (too much typing). This is just a one-shot, yes? Natalie 14:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A single template, as opposed to an escalating series of templates. Natalie 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if they continue to do it the standard vandalism or test templates would suffice.Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after someone's gotten this warning and continues doing it, that would make sense. In answer to your question: Yes, it is certainly one-shot (at first I thought maybe you meant that I only intended to use it once, which wouldn't make sense). However, something like this should still be used for this specific issue the first time it is recognized, but if they continue to disregard this rule, a new level has obviously been reached. Lenoxus" * " 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about a user who never signs their posts and refuses to? I got into this with User:Wrestlinglover420. He never signs his posts on talk pages and basically told me he's not gonna if he doesn't want to. TJ Spyke 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To return to {{Articlesig}}: It is really needed! Has something happened to the proposal, or is there somewhere else you need support so you can create it? Is someone fighting over the words to use? Greswik 21:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! I'd just let it slip my mind... so here goes! Link: {{Articlesig}}. Oh, and in answer to TJ Spyke: that template is {{Tilde}}, and at least one bot, HagermanBot, thankfully does this when it can (not that it's perfect, of course, so go ahead if the template is needed). In fact, seeing such a message on another user's talkpage was what reminded me of this! Lenoxus" * " 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! But, what is that {{PAGENAME}} - thing? I had to fix it after using it. Was that just me, could you make a simple example? Greswik 15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
If you aren't an admin, like most people here, do these threats carry no weight?W1k13rh3nry 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after level 4 on another incident, you report them for an admin to look into the matter. This is often done on WP:AIV. See also WP:AN. — RevRagnarokTalk Contrib 12:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the warnings threaten things, or mention admin-only tools. A lot of them are boilerplate reminders of various policies, like copyright infringement, signing posts, and using edit summaries. In that respect, templates save the work of thinking of and typing out a whole message yourself, and include links to relevant pages. With the warning series' that escalate to a final warning, most admins like to see that a user has received a level 3 or 4 warning (from any other user) before blocking, because it ensures that the person is aware of the rules and consequences. Natalie 15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<includeonly>subst:</includeonly> instead of subst=subst:?
Currently, most user warnings in this project make use of {{{subst|}}} with an optional |subst=subst:}} parameter that simplifies the output of the template when placed on a user talk page. However, this extra parameter is often excluded, and when used, requires some extra typing and doesn't work without an article parameter due to a bug. Perhaps we could use the much easier <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> trick to simplify the output? The includeonly trick uses no additional parameters, is used automatically every time, and also avoids the bug, allowing it to be used even without an article parameter. I think we should switch all the user warnings under this project to use this format, but I'd like to see if people support this first, since it would affect so many templates. PyrospiritFlames Fire 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd love to implement this, there is no way that everyone is going to subst user messages (I know, believe me), and if someone doesn't subst a message in the above format, then it will result is a sticky mess of code that will undoubtedly confuse an vandal, or cause said vandal to laugh at Wikipedia's unintentional bad coding, etc. GracenotesT § 14:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so it won't work if you don't subst, then? In that case, it would remind them to subst the message when they see the messed up code, so it'll serve two purposes! PyrospiritFlames Fire 02:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would mean that people check the output of the template after putting it. And that's probably not going to happen this century :D That kind of warning is useful on db-reason and afd, because a badly formed speedy deletion or AfD is enough to have the request bumped, but on a user warning, it will just confuse the user receiving the warning even more. -- lucasbfrtalk 06:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argument for welcome and anon
I have gotten into the habit of adding a parameter for welcome and anon (even though it is ignored) so that I can tell what article caught my eye. Perhaps the argument (if present) could be included in the message. For example, "Thank you for your contributions, such as your edit to {{1}}".
Template:uw-spam1 contains the following erroneous statement: Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. This sentence always bothered me because it's factually incorrect or misleading:
The presence of "nofollow" tags in the article's HTML header is irrelevant. Even without nofollow tags, most spiders are smart enough to avoid following links that lead away from the site being crawled. The point of nofollow tags is more to prevent spiders from indexing specific pages stored on the same web site that it's crawling.
It may not matter that external links "do not alter search engine rankings" because an external link in a Wikipedia article will drive more traffic to that external link! Wikipedia articles come up near the top of many searches, and people who read such an article will see the external links, and some fraction of those will click on those links.
I don't see the sentence as something that would sound convincing to a linkspammer. -Amatulic 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, Google and most search engines rank websites according to their popularity. Wikipedia being very popular, an outgoing link from there affected search results. The nofollow tag allows us to say that the link should be ignored. For the second statement, that's why we fight spam on WP ;). -- lucasbfrtalk 10:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4-im
What does "im" mean? --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we have a lonely template. I think a TFD is in order, since uw-spam basically covers it, and the other levels don't exist. Either that or make into a single use. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or redirect. —METS501 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Uw-redirect4im
Do we really need a 4im for redirecting? I think that's a bit harsh. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 14:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to the creation of uw-blp1 - uw-blp4 as redirects to the uw-biog series? At least for me, BLP (as the policy abbrev) is much easier to remember. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 13:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea. I've finally adjusted to "biog", but I had the same urge to type blp as the warning name.--Kubigula(talk) 13:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if it was needed, but I created one for myself anyway! It looks something like
Reported to Admin
You have been reported to admin due to your repeated vandalism. An administrator will review your edits and decide whether you should be blocked. Asics talk Editor review! 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any advice on whether I should leave it in my userspace, or move it to a proper template so others can find and use it more easily? As at the moment you have to type in {{Subst:User:Asics/Reported|sig=~~~~}} in order to get it to work. Is there another one already made? (Knowing my luck there will be, and I will have wasted 10 minutes making it!) Thanks in advance for any advice, Asics talk Editor review! 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fwarn isn't "uw-certified", but it's available. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fwarn is great, I wish it was "uw-certified." It's documentation needs help though. Not much, just a little. Okay, I'll do it. --Yksin 22:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you call it by that name? I didn't mean that as a name, I meant that as the template wasn't "approved" with the new template system. It's an old template. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely repeating your usage. In any case, whether "approved" within the new template system or not, Template:Non-admin fwarn is a very useful template, if used appropriately. I've put together a bit of documentation to help in that direction, that (as a fairly recent vandalism-fighter) I had to learn by trial & error. -- Yksin 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this template used occasionally when on bouts of vandalfighting and I must say that I am not entirely convinced by its usefulness. After all, it basically tells them that they are about to be blocked and there is nothing they can do about it. The Fwarn template states on it You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. However, if someone has submitted them correctly to WP:AIV and they have vandalised after a final warning, no matter how "careful and serious" they are, they are going to be blocked. In my humble opinion, all this template might do is, in some cases, encourage a last scurry of vandalism in the knowledge they are going to be imminently blocked anyway. I invite people to disagree with me and persuade me that this template is useful, but from my experience of witnessing its use I don't entirely feel that way. Will (aka Wimt) 02:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest reason I find it useful is because it indicates to the user that s/he has actually been reported. I frequently come across talk pages that have a large collection of "this is your final warning, next time you will be blocked" all in a row, with no indication that they've ever been reported. If I was engaged in vandalism, I'd just think, "they always say they're gonna do something to me but they never do." [[Template:Non-admin fwarn] lets them know: yes, something has been done. Almost as important, it lets other editors dealing with the same user's vandalism know that a report has been made -- especially if it's the same day with a particularly active vandal -- and adds to the general record of how serious a particular user's vandalism has been. Note that sometimes admins at WP:AIV do not block a reported user -- usually because of time passage since the last prior vandalism -- so I've added to the documentation to hopefully better align its usage with WP:AIV practice. I agree perhaps the language in the template itself could be improved. --Yksin 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna agree with Will in saying that I'm not entirely convinced of its usefulness. Someone who is an obvious vandal will get blocked without needing yet another message on their talk page. As for seeing whether they've been reported or not... I also fail to see the use in that. You can see from their block log (viewable by anyone) whether they've been blocked or not, and whether they've been reported doesn't have much bearing on anything (in my opinion, though I'm a lot more heavy-handed towards vandals than some other people are). If they're a vandal IP, block and move on. If they're a vandal account and they've been warned before, indefinitely block them and move on (regardless of time spent between warnings). EVula// talk // ☯ // 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in summary: you & I see the issues differently, & therefore choose differently. I can live with that. --Yksin 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been seeing this {{fwarn}} template on user pages before I block them, and I'm thinking maybe we should delete it. A lot of people who make WP:AIV reports do so improperly, and we remove the reports instead of blocking. If someone receives one of these messages and then doesn't get blocked, that's worse than just getting {{uw-v4im}} and not getting blocked. And this inevitably happens, we don't block on all reports but getting this warning and then no block definitely sends the wrong message: "go ahead and vandalize with impunity, nobody cares". — coelacan — 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would dislike deleting a template that people find useful, but I have to agree with the above point. Once someone has been reported to AIV, there are only two outcomes - either they get blocked, in which case there's not much point in telling them to reconsider their behavior (and the same message should presumably come from the blocking admin anyway), or they don't get blocked, in which case they either assume the reviewing admin thinks their vandalism was that bad or they learn to guage how much they can get away with without being blocked.--Kubigula(talk) 02:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would dislike deleting it against consensus. Perhaps it's worth taking the question up at WP:TFD? — coelacan — 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rough consensus above appears to support deletion, so I think consideration by a wider audience at TfD is probably appropriate.--Kubigula(talk) 03:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why... just... why? The mind boggles – Gurch 16:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxide makes a good point in the TFD; 3RR reports are sometimes validly contested. A template that lets a person know they've been reported for 3RR can be a good idea, if it points to WP:AN3. Without regard for keeping these generic fwarn templates, would a separate {{uw-3rr-reported}} template be a good idea? — coelacan — 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, the years tend to be common targets for anons who want to add themselves to Wikipedia. While I could use {{uw-test}}, {{uw-vandalism}} or {{uw-joke}}, I feel that these may be a little too generic. Are there any suggestions? --Sigma 7 02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the uw-vandalism series. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talking in article
Didn't we have a template for talking in articles? I can't seem to find it. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 20:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriately named {{talkinarticle}}. It's not a uw warning, but I still use it from time to time.--Kubigula(talk) 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal commentary & analysis
I seem to recall a uw template (albeit before the uw standardization) regarding adding personal commentary & original research? Something different from NPOV and cite tags... Am I overlooking it? /Blaxthos 06:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Birthdays
I was wondering whether there is an appropriate warning out there for telling people not to add their own birthdays to date articles. When looking over recent changes, I have noticed that this occurs very regularly. I had been giving them {{uw-test1}} but I feel it doesn't really convey what they are doing and why it is being reverted. I have attempted to make my own template for this purpose at User:Wimt/nn-birthday but I wondered whether any similar templates already existed and, if not, whether anyone else agrees with me that it would be a useful message to give out. Will (aka Wimt) 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seem a little specific. I would suggest using the uw-test templates with the third parameter, which allows you to add specific information. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using test1 for this. If someone does make a specific warning, I would suggest broadening it to adding any nonnotable thing to a date article. People add BS events, deaths, and other crap pretty regularly, as well as adding Jesus to the list of births on December 25. Natalie 02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's very true it could easily be broadened to any non-notable date addition. I do take your point TeckWiz that it is quite specific and I could use the third parameter of the test templates, but given how often I have been reverting this recently, I personally think that it may justify its own template. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it's a little too specific. Feel free to use yours though. It looks good. You may also want to move it to the template namespace, but I wouldn't classify it as uw- warning. What about Template:Datewarning ? --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah I have no great wish to make it a uw- warning. Template:Datewarning sounds a good idea to me. I'll move it there when I've reworded it a bit to make it suitable for any date addition. Thanks for your help. Will (aka Wimt) 09:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When to use "blatant vandal" warning (uw-bv)?
I can't figure out how the "blatant vandal" warning is supposed to be used. Based on the "assume good faith" policy, you're not supposed to accuse someone of vandalism unless it's, well, blatant. So, when should the templates uw-vandalism1, 2, etc. be used, and when should uw-bv be used? CalebNoble 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whats the difference between uw-bv and uw-vandalism4im ? --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use bv when it's not quite so extreme as to justify an immediate "This is your only warning", but still extreme enough that first and second-level warnings aren't enough. Essentially, I think of it as an immediate third-level warning (remember, level 3 likewise assumes bad faith) that gives a bit more context than just starting immediately with "Please stop". Heimstern Läufer 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree - although I don't really use uw-bv myself, I tend to consider it to be at the same level as uw-vandalism3 when giving further warnings. It is generally used as the first warning given to someone in cases of rather serious and/or fast vandalism. Uw-vandalism4im on the other hand I tend to use on editors who have got a last warning within the previous 24 hours or so to let them know they are still on their absolute last warning. It can also be used as a first and only warning in cases of extremely serious vandalism. Will (aka Wimt) 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've assumed that a garden variety vandal makes an article worse, but it's not completely clear they know the effect of what they're doing. A blatant vandal is one who knows they're making it worse. The former adds cutesy sayings, uncited libelous facts, or changes numbers to plausible values, etc. The latter inserts profanity, character assassinations, non-plausible numbers, etc. —EncMstr 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] The complexity of the vandalism should be taken into account as well. Someone who adds a picture of a penis to a Pokémon page or is modifying templates, for example, is of a totally different type than someone just adding "omg hi" to the day's FA. EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Att no longer policy
I don't know templates currently cite ATT instead of Verifiability, but they need to be changed back to Verifiability as ATT is not currently policy, but proposed policy. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 08:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any? If I am correct, they are all citing WP:V. -- lucasbfrtalk 09:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed a set last night--I think the big thing is all of the non talk page templates which haven't all been changed back. I'm working on requesting those now. But I have no idea about the rest of these. I did the citing sources set last night but the others? Miss Mondegreen | Talk 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
using article space as a forum
Unless I couldn't find it, we need a UWT assuming good faith to tell people to use the talk page rather than the article space for talk. To warn User talk:168.169.110.137 I had to modify another template. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{talkinarticle}} is good for this situation. We should probably go ahead and add it to the project.--Kubigula(talk) 17:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chat1 is currently geared to the situation where someone posts off-topic or inappropriate comments to an article talk page. Talkinarticle is designed for warning those who put talk comments in the actual article space. We could tweak Chat1 to cover the talk in article situation, but (although I generally think we are starting to get too many UWs) I think this is worth a specific one-off warning. I see this situation come up a fair bit, and Artic.gnome's question is at least the third time someone has asked about this template.--Kubigula(talk) 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad, I misread :). -- lucasbfrtalk 14:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We apparently have a new template for people vandalising pages with things like "[person] is gay". --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this template existence (even if personally I wouldn't use it, vandalism is vandalism. But we have {{uw-racism}}, so...), but this template is a copy paste of {{uw-v3}}. It could be replaced by
{{uw-vandalism3|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1|}}}}}|2=Also note that using [[LGBT]] terms to vandalize promotes hatred and is offensive to many people. Please stop promoting intolerance. }}
to keep it consistent with the uw-v3 formatting. -- lucasbfrtalk 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict - I have pretty much the same reaction as Lucas) I know there are folks who do LGBT RC patrol, and I personally don't begrudge them a specific warning template. However, I don't think we should add this to the main UTM page. We already have {{uw-racism}} and I think you could make an argument for a specific template for every way in which a comment can be offensive - race, sexual preference, religion, national origin etc. Personally, I think the vandalism warnings are adequate for addressing these situations. However, if people want something more specific, I suggest we create one warning, perhaps {{uw-offensive}}, that warns people not to make offensive comments regarding race, sexual preference or religion.--Kubigula(talk) 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a new-style template to replace the old {{anon vandal}} (Template:Anon vandal - 2 words, not Template:anonvandal 1 word... I see the problem, so is there a new name for the first one? Tvoz|talk 18:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image sizing
I tend to enumerate warnings for organisational purposes on userpages, as with this:
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
Note, however, that the size of the third-level warning's image (25 px) causes it to run into the 4th warning -- causing indentation. Reducing the warning to 15 pixels solves the issue. My only issue is with images in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level warnings classes paired with single lines of text (note how in this case, 1st and 2nd level do not overrun). For 4th level, I do not see issue: my formatting provides two lines of whitespace between the final warning and the admin notification and/or administrative act; so it clears it up. Any other concurrence with reducing image sizes for 1st, 2nd, or 3rd lvl warnings paired with single lines of text (see below)?
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 05:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block images and icons changes in general.
User:Magnus animum, changed the block images from Image:Stop x nuvola.svg to Image:Modern clock chris kemps 01 with Octagon-warning.svg see here. There was no mention of it here, and not all the warnings were done (I've done the missing one).
I'd prefer that most changes came through here like the ones done by User:98E to the lvl4 images (which I reverted) but the block images changes do not seem out of line with some of the blocks that were in place before. Anyone think otherwise? Ta Khukri 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was it your intention for the image links above to go to the IM dab page? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that icon is that it isn't protected and it is on Commons. That means that if someone on commons replaces the icon with something else everything here would also be affected. The other thing I don't like which is more minor but still an annoyance is that the icon doesn't seem to match the nuvola or modern look now being used in the uw-template series. -- Hdt83Chat 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your wikilinks, Khukri. I agree that there is a look'n feel problem with the new image. -- lucasbfrtalk 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing V1 and V2
I have to say that I'm not quite happy with {{uw-v1}} (and it's partly my own fault). The template tries to address situations where someone has vandalized repeatedly or just once, and the resulting language doesn't flow very well. I mean the "one or more of your edits, such as the one you made to..." part. My thought is to steal the language from V2 and change V1 to the following (options included):
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute to our encyclopedia, but please do not make unhelpful and unconstructive edits, as you did to Article. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia and feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Thank you.
Of course, this means that V2 would also need to be changed so that the two warnings are not redundantly similar. My proposed language for V2 is as follows:
Adding unhelpful and non-constructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Article, is considered vandalism and is reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
This would be a pretty big change, so I ask for comments, objections or suggestions. For all I know, it could just be me that doesn't particularly like the current V1.--Kubigula(talk) 02:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As level 1 warnings assume good faith, we should emphasize "considered unhelpful and unconstructive" in V1. If we are assuming good faith, we must assume they had good intentions but are unaware of policy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. How about, "..., but please do not make edits that are considered unhelpful or unconstructive, as you did to Article."? --Kubigula(talk) 03:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does one propose a new template?
Per discussion here, there seems to be a mismatch between the tone of the {{Uw-longterm}} tag and the purpose WP:WARN holds it out for (viz., reprimanding a user for a "Long term pattern of abuse"). A user had racked up a clear record of abusing the minor edit tag, but this abuse didn't amount to vandalism. Because we have a tag for such a "Long term pattern of abuse" I used this, and received complaints that this was needlessly inflammatory, because the template's language seems aimed at vandals, not serial abusers. In my view, "long term pattern of abuse" and "long term pattern of vandalism" are plainly distinct, and merit different templates. I propose there should either be separate tags for a long-term pattern of abuse (which is what we have here) and a long-term pattern of vandalism, or in the alternative, the language of the {{Uw-longterm}} template should be changed to be more appropriate to the behavior WP:WARN holds it out as a sanction for.Simon Dodd 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem is in the semantics of the word "abuse". It doesn't mean what you think it means. This template is fine for the purpose it's meant for, warning users who behave abusively. The guy you were using it on wasn't "abusing" anything. He was maybe misusing it (arguably, in some instances, not even in most). "Abusive" behaviour is harmful behaviour that is committed in a reckless or intentional way. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding Fut.Perf's comment, given discussion at WP:AN, I have made changes to WP:WARN and surrounding materials to fix the problems that led to this situation. To begin with, because abuse and vandalism are clearly separate concepts and because {{Uw-longterm}} clearly addresses the latter, I have relabeled it here at WP:WARN to reflect its actual purpose. I have also created a new template, {{Uw-longtermabuse}}, to fill the gap left by relabelling {{Uw-longterm}}. Lastly, I have proposed a new policy, Wikipedia:Abuse that I hope will be used to arrive at a community consensus of what "abuse" means as WP:WARN and other policies comprehend that term.Simon Dodd 13:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in further demonstration of Fut.Perf's bad faith in so doing, he made no note of that here or on my talk page. A true class act.Simon Dodd 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising warnings
A new section of WP:BLOCK, added in this edit, permits blocks afterr warnings of accouts that "exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service". It seems to me that a proper set of warning tempaltes should be crezted for this, and included in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Does anyone object or have any suggestions? DES(talk) 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh..{{uw-advert1}} and the rest of the series exist.. Never mind. Yes, they should be created. Also, since it's no in the blocking policy, we should make uw-adblock (ablock already exists). --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the series. Please review it if you have the time! GracenotesT § 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like these, but could some or all of the also link to WP:SPAM since that is the basic guideline on what is improper advertising. DES(talk) 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. We really should have named the template that is {{uw-spam1}}, {{uw-link1}}. I tried to avoid linking to WP:SPAM, thinking that it was covered by the {{uw-spam}} series. Given that, we still want to add that link somehow? GracenotesT § 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so, yes. {{uw-spam1}} is really {{uw-spamlink1}}, and this one couuld perhaps be called {{uw-spampage1}}, (and 2 and 3...) but I don't find the names a major problem. DES(talk) 19:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usage of the word "abuse"
This word is misused here. It is very difficult to actually abuse a person over the internet. See here
Instead of "long-term pattern of abuse", which might be offensive to people who have suffered actual abuse, we should say "long-term pattern of severe disruption", or some other different wording.
I can certainly agree with that, although it looks like it's going to be a moot point - someone's nominated the template for deletion.Simon Dodd 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption would be better wording if such a template were actually helpful. However, Armedblowfish, despite sharing your concern for the victims of abuse, reading a dictionary entry for "abuse" suggests that your restriction of the use of a word which has long had a wide range of meanings to the social context of the extremely serious things you refer to is itself an abuse of the English language. The things you describe are terrible, but that does not mean they should take over a perfectly good English word. JPD (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Reported to Admin
