Template:Archive box collapsible

The documentation for {{subst:Uw-soablock}} suggests that |anon= and |time= are valid parameters - in fact they are ignored.

I saw some certain level 3 templates have ambox icon, and some ones have the Nuvola Apps icon, Can we explain why we have 2 different warning icons on level 3 templates

Ambox Icon on a level 3 template:

• Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

and the nuvola apps icon on :

• Please stop. If you continue to harm Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Dreth 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hadn't noticed before. I guess nobody else did. Maybe that's the whole reason: Similarity. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled into Uw-test1 and some level1 warning templates that were redesigned in July/August 2012, How come they now have passive voice now. It would be better to just simply stick to the "I wanted to let you know I undid your edit because it could be bad" and not "Your edit was reverted because it was seen as bad". Dreth 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. @Steven (WMF): ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That's because not always the issuer of the message is the reverter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New question, The majority of the people who warn are reverters themselves. And if passive voice is needed, we could always use uw-test2 for good faith. Dreth 01:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Longstanding consensus is to use the active voice in the level 1 templates. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Guys, templates must be usable for all, not the majority. If the longstanding consensus has no reason backing it, so change it. But again, if there not enough people sending notices for the reverts of others and there is a reason behind using the active voice, who am I to mind?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we can rewire the active voice level 1 warnings to include the passive voice, but still have the active voice kept as well, or maybe create the level1a templates for passive voice users.Dreth 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "longstanding consensus" to use the active voice, even the RfC that initiated the change to the "I reverted it" wording (which was a few months ago, hardly longstanding) noted that the consensus was that these templates needed to be worked on further, so I don't see that there was ever much of a consensus other than a very few editors insisting that they thought it was better. - Aoidh (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now. should we 'BOLDly change the level 1 back templates to active voice? Or require census? Dreth 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a template which says the following (but, hopefully, better expressed)

This IP has been used recently by a blocked editor. However, he's stopped using it (and gone on to another IP), so there is no point in blocking.

The blocked editor in question has never been associated with an editor login, so the sock puppet templates don't seem quite appropriate.

It may not be true that there is no point in blocking. I recall one which has had 6 (2-12 hour) uses by the same person (per WP:DUCK), and none by anyone else. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's {{IPsock}}: Template:IPsock

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would work if there were an editor name to be associated with. However, I suppose {{IPsock}} could be edited to have the option of reporting a description rather than a name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since notice without target article means I'm Talk page stalker we should make template to require the {{{article}}} by default. This can be done with {{error|Please specify a reference article}} which gives Please specify a reference article . --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean on templates like {{subst:uw-editsummary}}? There are cases where a user has edited several different pages without leaving an edit summary on any of them. If it's a general problem, it's better to leave the page name unspecified, since naming a particular one might convey the impression that only the edit to that one page lacked an edit summary, and that all the others were OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I posted this idea because I submited this without this parameter and this happened (clink this link and see talk). --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link that you have given is not your edit - it is an edit made by Lexein (talk · contribs), and consisted of a {{subst:unsigned|Rezonansowy|12:23, 4 January 2014}} followed by a {{tps}} and some text. The {{tps}} produces (talk page stalker) - I often use it myself, to denote that I'm replying to a question on a user talk page, even though I'm not the person to whom the question was directed. Your edit was this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see {{uw}} and Template:Uw-editsummary/sandbox, you can test this with your talk page by substituting. I think this backbone template is ready to simplify markup on every user notice template, it includes auto thanks and sign text and auto icon options. IMO we can use this template by default in such templates. Please comment! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]