Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

If you have a query, please see The User Warnings Wikiproject Frequently Asked Questions to see if it is answered there.

Can this be added to the icon template call? Rich Farmbrough, 12:27 15 October 2007 (GMT).

I am considering bringing this template to TfD to be honest. I don't think it is a good idea to template people to tell them that it is bad to make death threats. What do you think? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think death and legal (until it's withdrawn) threats were temporary blocks, but yea I'd go along with that Lucas ^Khukri 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was so stunned by the by the big bold making death threats that I didn't see that! :D. Note that the legal threats one makes more sense, since WP:NLT is policy. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is also {{Deaththreatblock}} for indef-blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I bring one to tfd I'll bring the other then. Note that this one is only transcluded on 3 pages. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to get round to TfDing it since I saw this version. The obvious solution with the uw-tblock template is to reword it so that it refers to inappropriate threats, or similar. There are many types of threat which will earn a block, some of them are temporary, and vandalism does not always seem to be an apt description. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the templates would suffice if they simply said "making threats" rather than "making death threats". Same with the legal threat {{Uw-lblock}} template. If we say "death" and "legal" threats, that is a) too much information; and b) putting specific ideas in other unscrupulous user's heads.--12 Noon ^2¢ 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea. ^Khukri 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does "Threatening to take real world actions" sound, if you want a template? I dunno to be honest, WP:DENY pops in my mind when I imagine a situation where I would use such a template (Personally I think the NLT one should be kept though, for it is a convenient way to let the user know exactly why they are blocked). -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps on the end of these templates you could add ~~~~. It's not that big of a deal, but it would make life just a bit easier Ctjf83 ^talk 21:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone have a problem if i just do this? Ctjf83 ^talk 17:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uw templates did have an auto signature feature when they were first introduced. I know that there were objections and the feature was disabled. This was before my time on the WikiProject, but I do recall there was some controversy about it. One issue would be that some of the scripts do add a sig, so it would add double sigs if the template included one too.--Kubigula (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh, so the scripts from like twinkle copy off these? I thought they were just for copy and pasting Ctjf83 ^talk 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also have to say leave out auto-sigs. It's not that hard to remember to sign the template like you sign any other comment, and changing that would break all existing scripts that use the uw warnings and confuse all the people who are used to the current setup. Anomie⚔ 13:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at the beginning of the project and the answer was a resounding no, mainly because it's not standard throughout Wikipedia, which would lead to editors not remembering whish templates had to be signed and which didn't. The block templates have sig=(any char) only because they use div's. ^Khukri 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I seem to have inadvertently vandalised my own user page when I clumsily tried to add a sandbox. Unfortunately I can't see to undo or revert the change. Can anyone help?--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what you are looking for, but if you put {{db-userreq}} at the top of your "vandalized" user page, an admin will probably come along and delete it for you. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this template (and others like it) to avoid cluttering the "What links here" reports from disambiguation pages by not linking to the article if it is a disambig. That will make it easier for those of us who do a lot of disambig work to see what on the page is a link that really needs to be fixed. The http link to the edit itself should suffice. If not, can we force it to pipe links to "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation)" where "Foo" is a disambiguation page? Cheers! bd2412 T 23:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really really don't think there's a way to do that automatically, sorry. - ∅ (∅), 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which template in particular (the talk pages for most uw series templates redirect here)? Anyway, there is no way to detect if any particular page is a disambiguation page for "forcing" piping as you request, it would be up to the person leaving the warning to handle that in some manner. And if the problem edit in question was to the disambiguation page, you're just out of luck. Personally, I would just ignore all User talk namespace pages (and talk namespaces in general) when checking that sort of thing per WP:TALK#Others' comments. Anomie⚔ 03:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few times people deleting web sources which go dead and often deleting the information soon after as unsourced! I've just read [1] which says you shouldnt do this.

Could someone put together a user warning template I can use to respond to a user who deletes a dead link without replacing it? Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. First draft at {{Uw-defunct link}}. A few issues. The name which I would have used, "dead link", is taken. Anyone have a suggestion for a better (maybe more compact) name? I couldn't figure out a generic opening that would take an if parameter, so this template will break (leave {{{1}}} in the text) if you don't add the article's name as a first parameter. I don't imagine it will be a high use template and probably only used by experienced editors so I don't think that will create much of a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-dead-link}} doesn't seem to be taken. I've tried to make the parameter optional. Anomie⚔ 14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise with {{uw-deadlink}} and {{uw-dead link}}. Perhaps you were thinking of {{dead link}}? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Looks good - I'll remember it next time I come across dead link deletions! AndrewRT(Talk) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to {{Uw-dead link}}. You are correct Anomie. I forgot the Uw when checking that name and thus thought uw-dead link was taken.:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current usage description for {{sdd2}} in the chart is incorrect. The correct paramters are 1) article name; 2) invalid reason given by csd tagger; and 3) reason why the csd tagger's rationale is incorrect. The current usage only has two parameters, and apparently {{tltts}} only allows for two. Is there any way to fix this? The correct usage description, if a third parameter was allowed, would be something like: {{tltts|sdd2|Article not speedied - valid reason that just doesn't apply|par=Article|par2=reason given for deletion|par3=reason why the csd rationale provided does not apply}}--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-badcsd}}

Redirects to User:Spebi/uw-badcsd; personally, I think if it's good enough for a redirect from the template namespace, it's good enough to actually be in the template namespace. I'm not sure if the template should be moved or the redirect RfDed, though.

{{uw-balkans}}

We discussed this above and seemed to conclude it's not appropriate for a uw template. Should we do something about it, and if so what? Possibilities include moving it, revising it, or TfDing it.

{{uw-unsourced4im}}

Redirects to {{uw-vandalism4im}}. I'm having trouble thinking of a situation that would call for a 4im warning rather than the normal series of uw-unsourced templates.

Any thoughts, anyone? Anomie⚔ 17:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For {{uw-badcsd}}, the template should be moved to template namespace. {{uw-balkans}} should go through TFD and be removed as the message that the warning brings dosen't really fit the uw-series. The redirect at {{uw-unsourced4im}} should be removed as I agree that there probably won't be a situation where this will need to be used. These are my thoughts. --Hdt83 ^Chat 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-badcsd}} resembles {{sdd2}} - should merge content from sdd2 to make the all-new uw-badcsd so it can join WP:UTM. {{uw-balkans}} should go, unless used on occasions, in which case at least rename to something like {{arbcase-balkans}}. As for {{uw-unsourced4im}}, redirects are cheap and leaving it alone would serve as a reminder that the progression of uw-unsourced* already jumped to {{uw-generic4}} (as per WP:UTM). Dl2000 (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the death threat block message {{uw-tblock}} say that it's a temporary block, while the legal threat block message {{uw-lblock}} say it's indefinite? If you ask me, making a death threat is far more objectionable than making a legal threat, though both are uncalled for. Why would anyone who made death threats be allowed to return? - Chardish (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A better question is why we even have that template. Death threats come up so infrequently, in the time it would take to look it up and copy and paste it you could just write out a quick block message. Mr.Z-man 09:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What template should be used if a user adds in a prediction for future events? Like if someone adds "The 2008 World Series will be the Mets against the Red Sox"? This is mainly a problem on wrestling articles, where IPs will add in rumored matches or matches they want to see (or just making shit up for no reason). I normally give the Unreference warning, but should that still be given when you know the info is BS and won't have a source? TJ Spyke 22:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps {{Uw-hoax}} is the closest thing? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems that all the talk pages for the various templates point here, is this then the place to discuss possible changes in wording to individual templates? If so, might I ask what the rationale is for that rather than discussing on talk pages for the specific templates? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed briefly [[2]] and somewhere else I can't recall. The main reason the talk pages of individual templates all redirect here was because the discussions were too scattered and there were many cases of proposed changes and suggestions left unnoticed for months at a time so it was decided to centralize all disscussions about the uw-warnings to this talk page. --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suppose there's some sense in that. I'll make a suggestion here in a bit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:uw-3rr might benefit from a link to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The template advises users to discuss their dispute, which is a start. The advantage of linking to the dispute resolution page is that this page helps explain what to do if simple talk page discussion doesn't work (I find often users keep reverting because they find discussion isn't productive). The one con I can think of is that this warning is already rather long and adding a link would lengthen it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't mention fair use. A little misleading, I think. Rocket000 (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angel David recently made a change to this template. The difference is that this version would explicitely identify the target's conduct as vandalism. I personally don't like this change as I think it is sufficient for the level one WP:AGF template to describe the conduct as unconstructive. If there is clear or blatant vandalism, you can always skip to the level two warning or go straight to {{Uw-vandalism4im}} or {{uw-bv}}. I like having a softer version available, and the change also deprecates the level 2 warning. Any other opinions on this?--Kubigula (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that edit is not assuming good faith. Revert it. Anomie⚔ 03:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree it should not say vandalism. Though I have wondered why need both test1 and vandalism1 when their usages are about the same. Mr.Z-man 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use test1 if it's an inoffensive edit ("Josh is the coolest") and vandalism1 if it's more offensive ("Australians are a bunch of dumbass fuckheads"), but can still possibly be described as someone experimenting with whether they really can edit this thing.--Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. Damn, I already placed this template a few times with that language and I was not intending to label a newbie as a "vandal". This template is supposed to AGF, so it should have polite language. If you want to label a user as a "vandal", then use level 2 or 3. That is the point of "levels". Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should such a high use template be fully protected? A change for a few minutes could affect many uses. There really isn't much of a need for it (or similar templates) to be edited. Mr.Z-man 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need both vandalism1 and test1, if nothing else, for consistency. Say a new user goes to the help desk or uses {{helpme}} and asks how do I deal with some edit and is referred to the chart and escalating warnings are explained (or simply makes it here themselves and figures it out). If they are addressing a series of vandalism edits, they should be presented with the commensurate escalating, consistently named series, each starting with vandalism, and not have to figure out that test1 is illogically followed by vandalism2. Course the chart could remain unchanged with a simple redirect from one to the other, but it still would leave an incongruity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that there are even tools that automatically post these templates on user talk pages, they should all be fully and indefinitely protected to ensure that they are not changed without discussion. - ∅ (∅), 11:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. There are enough admins that keep an eye on these pages to sort any problems that arise, though I'm not entirely sure that ring fencing the warnings in their entirety will sit well with the community. ^Khukri 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that since these "uw-" templates were all (or most) created by a collaboration and all heavily scrutinized before they were implemented, any changes should be discussed first so that other templates can be updated accordingly to maintain strict consistency. Therefore, they (at least the ones using the "levels" structure) should be fully protected - thereby guaranteeing discussion. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it here for a couple more days, then village pump the issue. ^Khukri 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Other" section, the link that says "Click here to show messages" is redirecting to the same page as for the single level templates section, which makes me wonder what that link is for. Isn't there a page anywhere showing all the templates from the "Other" section that it could link to? • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, too. The history tab shows it was redirected in November - I do not know any of the back history on that. Anyway, I think all of those pages are in dire need of being reorganized pretty soon. I have been cleaning up the main page here and there and put these subpages on my to-do list, but I might not get to it for months.--12 Noon ^2¢ 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]