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).

guys, this is something I forgot to bring here the other week but just remembered, so better late than never. Sandstein added the above warning to the main page after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, this was done with good intention though I believe this warning should have greater concensus before going live (my comments and reasoning are in the blocks and logs section of the ArbReq). Thoughts please? ^Khukri 15:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (signed later oops)[reply]

I say that placing such a template on the UTM page is a bad idea. The tone of the message is very biting to me and unknowing newbies may be extremely offended by this message. Such a warning on the UTM page may also encourage users who are in a dispute relating to the subject to place these templates on users' talk pages without thought or to get back at them. I also concur with your point on this template leading to things like Template:Uw-ireland, Template:Uw-israel-palestine etc.. Not every editor involved in editing the related Balans pages needs this rude message on their talk page and those that do should have a more personal message rather than a template. So to sum up my point, the template is over-excessive and not needed. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole idea of this preemptive warning is contrary to WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. More in line with policy, IMO, would be to give the warning to editors who are beginning to engage in behaviors that would result in these sanctions. Yes, this means they might get away with slightly more disruption, but the alternative is worse. Anomie⚔ 02:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not suited for UTM. And personally I think templating is a very bad idea here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this say "promotional" rather than "commercial" material? It's not only commercial stuff that gets spammed on Wikipedia, and there doesn't seem to be any other series of warnings that applies to promotional additions. - ∅ (∅), 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would be better.--Kubigula (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to create a template whereby it can be placed on anonymous IP's talk-pages informing them about the benefits of creating an account? This is assuming, of course, that such anonymous editors are making regular contributions to certain article(s) and it is obvious that they are serious-ish editors. So it may be helpful to let them know about the benefits of creating an account and the template can direct them to the appropriate WP page that deals with it. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like {{welcome-anon}} ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several welcome template that fit the purpose: See Template:Welc-anon, Template:AnonymousWelcome, and Template:Welcome-anon-vandal. Hope that helps. --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both very much. Ekantik ^talk 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has gone an nominated uw-notcensored3 and uw-notcensored4 for deletion without discussion. The point regarding softening the wording is valid; I suggest changing {{uw-notcensored3}} to

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. If you continue to make changes which have the effect of censoring an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

and changing {{uw-notcensored4}} to redirect to {{uw-delete4}} rather than {{uw-vandalism4}}. Any thoughts? Anomie⚔ 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on the TfD, cheers for bring this to our attention. ^Khukri 10:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template currently states "Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them". Should we really be discouraging second-time low-level offenders (i.e. test2 rather than vand2) from attempting to fix articles, like this wording suggests? Surely attempting to fix an article is not even covered by what we would normally consider as "test edits"? And if I'm merely misunderstanding the wording, and it's actually saying they should not be attempting to fix their own test edits (in which case it could be made clearer perhaps), then why should we be discouraging users reverting themselves?
I feel this template perhaps needs a bit of rewording. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the template was meant that the vandals should not make test edits even if they are going to remove the test edits they made afterwards. The wording may be slightly confusing and if someone comes up with a better way to word this sentence them I'm all for it. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template to use or noticeboard to report a user using their userpage as a sport's blog? Mbisanz (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only templates for the more common problems, and even then they aren't a substitute for a good ol' personal message. All the templates are listed on the project page. Cheers ^Khukri 08:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]