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).

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]

Though in saying leave it here, it would be good if alot of other editors who have had a long involvement in these templates give their thoughts (even if it is just support) as well, as a starting point before going to VP ^Khukri 11:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the decision on the actual templates, I believe the shortcuts ({{uw-v1}}, etc.) for all of these should be fully protected. Thoughts on the redirects?--12 Noon ^2¢ 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can't think of any good reason not to protect the redirects. Incidentally, I also agree with fully protecting the most used templates. At a minimum, there should be a notice suggesting discussion before making any substantive changes.--Kubigula (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've fully protected the common uw redirects. In some sense, these were probably at greater risk, as I doubt very many of us had them on our watchlists.--Kubigula (talk) 05:04, 11 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]

Is there a warning template for users who are misusing Wikipedia procedures? In the example I'm looking at, a user has nominated an obviously valid article for deletion. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are only for common garden problems that we see almost every day, and are no substitute for a good ol' personal message. In your case it depends on the reasoning for the AFD, but common problems would be WP:POINT or WP:CENSOR. Ask an admin for a speedy keep at WP:ANI, and if the editor persists without good reasoning then blocks would be issued for disruptive editing. ^Khukri 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any real need for such a warning? That "only" word is way too strong: IMO, it implies you'll never get another; and it certainly can't (this is still IMO) be used if there already are some warnings on the page! Even "If you see a vandal with a long history" (as said here, and i assumed it meant a long history of unwarned vandal edits), i'd go for vandal3 instead... Or if that long history was already warned (as seen here), vandal4 would be just fine. Perhaps a modified v4im, that said "your newest disruptive edits" or "your recent disruptive edits"... Other thoughts? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, as it is the only warning the editor will receive. This warning should not be used on first time vandals or editors with a mixed history of vandalism and good edits, but usually on persistent IP's, with a number of blocks to their names, where the editing trend suggests there is a very high chance the next edit will be vandalism. This is the set of warnings were AGF can only go so far, and we have to face facts that if a school IP only has vandalism edits to it's name, once a block has expired, we tell them again of the consequences and go for a longer block next time if the warning is ignored. Cheers ^Khukri 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Khukri. I have seldom used that warning, but I have used it when an account has had a long string of vandalism that was clearly intentional, but no recent warnings. If they were blocked 3 months ago and have vandalized regularly for the last 2 months without getting a warning, there's no purpose in starting them off with a level 2 warning... --Orlady (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I use it in cases where {{uw-bv}} doesn't apply, I don't want to block them immediately (e.g., their last block expired a few months back, but they still have an extensive history of vandalism and blocks), or they've done a lot of vandalism yet haven't been warned yet. My only problem with people using {{uw-vandalism4im}} is that they use it instead of {{uw-vandalism1}} or {{uw-vandalism2}} thinking that when they report to WP:AIV we'll treat it as a final warning, which is likely not going to be the case except in cases of sockpuppetry or something extraordinary. --slakr^\ talk / 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, a question: when should warning4 be used and when should warning4im be used? ~Ambrosia- ^talk 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

warning4 is used after warning3 has been issued. warning4im is the only warning they receive, which is used for chronic vandals after a block expires. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a suggested manner on the main page in which to apply these warnings to user talk pages:

===March 2007===
# warning
# warning
* block
# warning

So, if this is the recommended usage, should it be incorporated into the templates themselves? This would include adding a "#" at the beginning of each template and a header function (which would need coding to handle different situations - can be discussed later). Are there any drawbacks to this? Thoughts?--12 Noon ^2¢ 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose this. Trying to correctly use code to insert headers in certain cases would be more trouble than just typing "===January 2008===" when needed. As for the "#", last I heard that was put on the page because someone thought it might attract more use there, since few were using it before. Anomie⚔ 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; numbering breaks if someone (or an automated script) skips a line:

1. one
2. two

1. three.

Plus, some of the antivandal bots that autowarn might need to be notified of the change. In all reality, we should probably just update the page to remove the whole numbering idea, because most admins (from what I would guess) and other editors don't pay attention to the sheer number of warnings but more to the the time they were left, the time between them, and what they're for. Morever, because the warnings all have icons on them, they are easy to count visually (without worrying about spacing/parsing/etc). --slakr^\ talk / 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the icon visual. If the layout suggestion is removed from the page (which then it probably should be), the heading suggestion should definitely be left intact. With that being said, since some users remove warnings from their page (as they are free to do so), I would recommend some type of standardized edit summary be suggested on the page so warning can easily be seen in the history. Maybe "WARN #1" or something, in caps. I don't know.... Thoughts?--12 Noon ^2¢ 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above in that rearranging the warnings and actually typing in the code for the warnings takes up more time. Also, tools and anti-vandal bots would have to be reprogrammed to follow this format. I say that we should get rid of this layout since the icons should be sufficient enough to tell what level warning the vandal is on. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already got rid of the "layout" when the #'s were removed from the templates themselves. :-p - ∅ (∅), 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Since the layout was added to this page, I have seen a definite increase in its usage by now-WP:UW members. As I noted in our previous discussion on this topic (was it in 2006?), while I prefer to keep the existing layout, I am not firmly attached. Though I feel lukewarm about them, I do not find either of the options discussed at WP:UW to be particularly objectionable:

1. drop the numbering layout, keep the icons in the warnings
2. keep the numbering layout, drop the icons in the warnings

Like I said, while I prefer the existing system and layout, I do not have any great objections to either of these options. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Increasingly I am seeing instances of vandals removing warnings from talk pages. One way of reducing the effect of this, which I am doing, is to paste the warning template code into the Edit Summary as well. This makes it easy for an admin looking at the history to see the type and nature of the warnings, even if no warnings appear on the current version of the page. Should such a request be added to the project page and promoted ? Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:UTM page does suggest you, "give the level of the template you have used (and preferably the name: for example, "error3", "v2", "d1") in your edit summary". I think most admins are in the habit of checking the talk page history for warnings, though it definitely makes life easier if descriptive summaries are used.--Kubigula (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I block, I always look at the talk page history first to make sure all of the warnings were properly issued. You pretty much have to since WP:USER was updated to state that editors may remove at will any messages on their own talk page. That said, as a blocking admin, I certainly appreciate it whenever an editor also includes the warning in their edit summary (personally I put the generic warning in the summary, such as {{uw-error3}} or {{uw-tpv4}}). --Kralizec! (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of creating {{uw-hblock}}, partially because I'm too lazy to keep pasting my block reason into {{uw-block1}} (et al). Plus, I figure it's useful shorthand for other admins as well. Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 16:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is some discussion of which I am unaware, but why does the reason need to be stated on the template? The reason is usually listed in the blocklog anyway. I would point to WP:BEANS and WP:NOSPADE as reasons. I am not an admin so I do not add those templates, but I see them. If I am a vandal and I see a cohort with a block for doing such-and-such, then maybe I would do that because it is a sure way to get blocked. See a related archived thread regarding death threats. I guess I am just playing devil's advocate, but it seems to be a legitimate pondering. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I've never made a death threat block, so I definitely agree with you on that, but I've made multiple harassment blocks (usually to socks and obvious trolls), so it's less of a block message for the people using socks and trolling, as it is more for the people who might be accidentally affected by the block and for other visitors coming to the talk page to warn the user (despite him/her already being blocked). --slakr^\ talk / 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just semantics, but how does one attempt to harass another user, either they are or they aren't? ^Khukri 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me the wording the wording "bad practice" in "deleting or editing legitimate comments ... is considered bad practice", used in Template:uw-tpv1, comes across as almost a joke. Any reasons to not replace that by "... is considered unacceptable"?  --Lambiam 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a level 1 warning, so the wording seems appropriately gentle. (Just my 2 cents...) --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to include template warnings against copyright violations? --StephenBuxton (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:uw-copyright}} is already in place. --Kife 12:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also {{subst:nothanks}}.--Kubigula (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a slight change to the wording of uw-afd1? "It would be appreciated if you would not remove Articles for deletion notices" may not be strictly incorrect from a grammatical point of view, but isn't particularly "natural" English. I would suggest "if you did not remove" or "you refrained from removing" instead. Tevildo (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current wording is a bit awkward. I would go with an even simpler, "Please do not remove...".--Kubigula (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Kubigula (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion on making a prohibition on removing templated warnings within one calendar month of being placed on a user's talk page by a logged on registered user as an exception to the general practice of WP:DRC. Alice^✉ 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering this is directly contradicted by both the official vandalism policy and the guideline on user pages, I doubt this is going to get off the ground. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've just read through our current WP:VAN policy pages and I must be rather dense this afternoon because it wasn't obvious to me why a proposal that users be prohibited from removing templated warnings (including those related to vandalism) from their own user talk page within one month is contradicted there (the edit summary by C B Dunkerson one year after discussion closed did not mention where the "community consensus" to reject the proposal was logged).
2. Guidelines change as circumstances demand, that's why the discussion is ongoing. (The relevant guideline was added relatively recently. At the time it was added, this was the relevant text on that policy page:

"Talk page vandalism

Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

Now that text is no longer present on that policy page, it is arguable whether the guideline should be revised as well...)

In any event, "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community..." and if you visit the discussion, you will see why these changes are being proposed. Alice^✉ 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to let people know that as discussed above, the template uw-balkans has been nominated for deletion at tfd. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:uw-balkans to discuss. Thanks. --Hdt83 ^Chat 10:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea to make the wording flow better: This:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, 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...

to this: (modified areas in bold)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, 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...

I thought I should ask before making any kind of modification to any of the user warnings. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-vandalism1 already uses that language. I would think all of the level 1 templates should be checked and updated with this language. Go for it. --12 Noon ^2¢ 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed this template again this afternoon and this time I decided to nominate it for deletion. You are invited to voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_22#Template:Uw-tblock. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked this template to make it more informative (the previous version was very blunt, in my opinion). What do you think? -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an "e" missing from "everyone". I don't have access to fix this. --Mr R 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the warning templates redirect back to this central talk page, please specify which particular template has the error. Regards. --12 Noon ^2¢ 01:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, hadn't spotted the redirect. 'Tis {{uw-npa1}} --Mr R 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose removing the sandbox clause ("If you would like to experiment...") from {{uw-npov2}}. When people are pushing POV, they usually aren't just experimenting, they mean what they say. It's actually a matter of courtesy that we take them seriously. Implying that they may have been just fooling around with no purpose comes across as condescending. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, removed :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It links to Wikipedia:External_links twice in the first sentence. Slightly confusing for the layperson I think. I reckon it would read better if the first instance was unlinked. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and  Done--Kubigula (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better if Template:Uw-coi was changed so that "avoid breaching relevant policies" was not numbered as part of the previous list, which has a different context? Maybe instead of "#:and you must always: / # '''avoid breaching'''...", "And you must always '''avoid breaching'''..."? --Jason McHuff (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when a new user gets off on the wrong foot, and rather than get a welcome message the new user gets bombarded with warnings. In the interest of assuming good faith, it might be helpful to give the user a welcome message combined with a notice of what they've done wrong.

For new editors that have made joke edits, I created Template:welcome-joke. May I add this to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace? Kingturtle (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions, but it seems like the purpose of that template kind of overlaps with the purpose of {{uw-joke1}}. Perhaps a rewording of {{uw-joke1}} is in order? - Chardish (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sending the {{uw-joke1}} message misses out on also providing the new user with a wide array of helpful links. Kingturtle (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do new users really want a wide array of helpful links, or do they want a few links, carefully selected? Providing links to nearly every useful page (there are 64 links on that template) is overwhelming. - Chardish (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]