Template:Archive box collapsible

I have just discovered a bug (feature?) in the {{uw-advert}} template (which I presume is a common bug/feature in all of the uw-xxx templates). If the original warner forgets to subst the template, then the name in the warning ("Hello, I'm <name>...") changes whenever a different editor posts a message after the original warning. Thus, if user A warns user B, and then user C comes along and makes a completely unrelated post on user B's page, the template will be now read "Hello, I'm C..." when it should read "Hello, I'm A". I don't know if the subst bot is smart enough to fix this error by examining the page history and replacing the correct name, or if will just leave whatever name happens to be there by the time the bot updates the page, but in either case, even a temporary misattribution seems to be a bad bug. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is because it uses the {{REVISIONUSER}} variable, which indicates the editor at last edit. If you subst: the user warning template (as all of them should be), the {{REVISIONUSER}} gets substituted as well, so the name is fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of editing the templatesnotice usage at {{Bv}}(Blatant vandalism):

{{Templatesnotice|series = uw-vandalism|max = 4im|s1 = uw-v4im|s2 = uw-vand4im|s3 = uw-vandal4im}}

replacing the above with the following:

{{Templatesnotice|series = uw-vandalism|max = 4im|s1 = Bv|s2 = uw-v4im|s3 = uw-vand4im|s4 = uw-vandal4im}}

OTOH, this is heavily used and the current usage doesn't seem to follow the documentation so I thought I'd ask for feedback. These exist: {{Uw-vandalism0}} {{Uw-vandalism1}} {{Uw-vandalism2}} {{Uw-vandalism3}} {{Uw-vandalism4}}. So why not something like this?:

{{Templatesnotice|series = uw-vandalism|max = 4im|s1 = Bv|s2 = uw-vandalism0|s3 = uw-vandalism1|s4 = uw-vandal2|s5 = uw-vandalism3|s6 = uw-vandal4im}}

--Elvey (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Template:Uw-3rr, I have changed "Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing" to "Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing". In this sentence, "being" is a gerund, properly preceded by a possessive. Being, not you, is the object of the first part of the sentence. For examples and discussion of how this principle works, please see this link, this link, or this one. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, interesting, but clearly we should simplify the language to prevent the current ping-ponging. Any suggestion of how we make:

• Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. more based on
• Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned or
• Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption ?

Also, it helps to say it's the {{Uw-3rr}} per the talk page banner and edit page notice (end of gripe). Widefox; talk 23:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "ping-ponging" you mention has been brought on by only two editors apparently unaware of the proper grammar. If the question comes up again this section of discussion can be referenced. Isn't it ironic that there should be a mini-edit war over a word in an edit war warning. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oops, wrong paste...fixed...how about:

• Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing ? Widefox; talk 08:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or a combination of your first two examples: Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or banned from editing to prevent further disruption. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The text "This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution." is rather contradictory: It is stating that you are breaking the law, yet that action is merely undesired. Can that be changed to "unacceptable" or "inappropriate" or something else to be a better choice of wording? Rgrds. --64.85.216.200 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the spam1 bot default, I feel like i should update it to match the bot warnings of the future, today!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, atleast one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed.

• Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform foradvertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project.

• Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings.

• If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it.

Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Template:Z88

Think this one is better. DDreth ask me questions! 19:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that we have multiple templates for users who talk on article pages. In addition to uw-talkinarticle found on the list, we also have the uw-cia series (1 2 3 4) of templates. The only reference I can find to these is a talk page archive from 2007. Shouldn't we decide on one or the other and delete what we don't decide on? --71.199.125.210 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]