Archives

1. April 2005 - April 2006 2. April 2006 - October 2006

We don't have a template for this --WikiSlasher 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you call a "useless" redirect? -- DiegoTehMexican 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like redirecting people from a page that is totally irrelevant to another page, I guess? MythSearcher 19:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - for example redirecting Likes to kill people for no reason to God (actually happened) or girehgpeirhg;pire to River. --WikiSlasher 06:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{testXarticle}}…? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I used when I came across the situation. I suppose that'll do fine. --WikiSlasher 09:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do we use for good-faith when a user have added a link to a site that contains copyrighted materials like mp3, game, video, etc. downloads? I used the linkspam one for now (welcomespam) but I guess it sounds a bit strange. MythSearcher 19:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should use {{spam0}} (or the alias {{spam-agf}}). It was made for this purpose. 0-level templates are actually usually "assume good faith" templates. -- Renesis (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user has repeatedly "informed" me that templates are only to be used on "newbies" and that my using them on him/her is highly offensive (and she/he subsequently left an — by his/her own admission — retributive template on my talk page). Though I have backed my position and the user has not, I thought I would ask directly; I can think of many reasons that I feel this does not make sense, but rather than stating my own opinion, I want to know the Wikipedia policy. Shannernanner 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template warnings can be used on anyone where its appropriate. Hey, I mean even if an admin did something I would still use a template on them. --WikiSlasher 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Welcome page has been merged into the Introduction for a month now. If someone familiar with the templates (particularly an admin, as many are perma-protected) could update them all to remove/replace that link, that would be great :) Thanks. --Quiddity 21:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Welcome, newcomers sounds friendlier than Introduction. Just my 2¢. --WikiSlasher 07:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You don't greet people by saying "Introduction", do you? --Kyoko 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just like when I created {{longterm4im}}, I wanted to post here to ask everybody how my most recent template could be improved. I feel that {{test5article}} is fine right now, but I also feel that it could be improved just that much. Any suggestions? --I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Anonymous vandals" portion of the grid needs a series of warnings. There is an interesting comment by Jimbo Wales that applies to anonymous editors (IPs) that should be incorporated into warnings to anonymous editors:

• Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits. I really don't care about your complaint as currently stated.--Jimbo Wales 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have adapted it for easy insertion in templates:

• Users with "anonymous IP numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits." -- Jimbo Wales

How can we use this? -- Fyslee 16:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Jimbo's statement might make for a good policy or guideline, putting it into templates that will be placed on anon users' talk pages is a bit confrontational. In the particular case Jimbo was talking about, this was a (presumably) good-faith but anonymous editor getting caught in a block of an anon vandal. Rather than "biting" them by telling the newcomers they have no rights, perhaps a variant on Template:anon to tell a "good" anon user there is no way to tell them apart from vandals unless they make an account. --Dgies 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not intended against anyone in particular, but every remark Jimmy makes doesn't need to be quoted somewhere. I'm sure he knows this too. --WikiSlasher 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, if you're worried about this perpetuating the whole "James owns us" mentality, don't. Everyone should know GIPUs have less rights. The diference in access privilages alone makes that clear. Jim's just stating a fact. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Template:Wr has been deleted, but I can't find a TfD discussion regarding it. Does anyone know what happened or where the discussion is? --GentlemanGhost 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedily deleted by Thebainer under CSD T1. It was than put under a deletion review, but the result of the discussion was that it would remain deleted, so it's now gone. I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 18:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour me confused, but why were they deleted just three weeks after a Templates for Deletion concensus to keep them? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies and the link. I had failed to find that discussion using my (inadequate) search techniques. I am as confused as Kralizec, though. If the result of the discussion was "keep", why haven't they been restored? Was there another discussion that superceded this one? --GentlemanGhost 22:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the deletion review for it! --WikiSlasher 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there templates to warn that a user should not remove warnings from their talk page? I always end up entering that manually. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were the Template:WR warnings ... see the above discussion. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template to warn users about creating disparaging articles? I keep looking for one, and I notice a lot of people putting up speedy deletion tags not warning users. RichMac 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep there's:

• {{attack}} (sounds like level 3) (optional to include name, uses parser function)
• {{attack-warn}} (sounds like level 3) (must include article name)
• {{warn-attack}} (sounds like level 2) (must include article name)
• {{attackpg-warn}} (sounds like level 1)

• {{attackpg-warn-n}} (Article-specific version)

They're not in the table though for some reason, I might add them in sometime. --WikiSlasher 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found attack shortly after posting just by punching stuff in. Would definantly be nice to have them in the table though. RichMac 09:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{db-attack}} template does place

Please consider placing {{subst:attack|Article Title}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author.

in the "this has been tagged for speedy" box on the tagged article, which can be cut and pasted. Perhaps these should be renamed to fit the "standard" warning levels though? Tonywalton  | Talk 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does the im in test4im stand for? Is it "immediate"? --WikiSlasher 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These seem very focused on legal threats, and only tangentially related to physical threats. I just used Template:threat2 to warn an anon who said "I know where you live poser", and it didn't quite seem like the right warning. Are there other warning templates that would be more appropriate? Or should we consider modifying threats2 and threats4 to be more inclusive of non-legal threats? --Dgies 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's close enough. Since it's subst'ed anyway, it is always an option to just edit the text for your specific case. — Sebastian

There are templates here to put on the user page when his article is AfD'd or PROD'd, but not if its nominated for speedy deletion. I'm sure such templates must exist but they seem very well hidden. Anyone know where they are? Thx Herostratus 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually go straight to a {{test}} or {{nn-test}} or the like. It's probably not correct, but I do prefer to notify users by some means. RichMac (Talk) 03:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just arrived looking for the same thing. Time to create one? (It must already be done...) ∴ here…♠ 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newpages patroller so off the top o' me head: {{nn-warn}}, {{nn-notice}}, {{Nn-test}}, {{vanity}}, {{vanity2}} {{empty-warn}}, {{spam-warn}}, {{test1article}}, {{test2article}} (through 4), {{Nonsensepages}}, {{nothanks}} (for db-copyvio), {{Attackpg-warn}}, {{Attack-warn}} {{Recreated}}—that's most of 'em.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added references to a few in the deletion related section. Turns out most of the speedy templates like {{db-bio}} include a line suggesting the use of an appropriate template.. shame on us for not reading far enough ;). Thanks for the help. ∴ here…♠ 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Not enough users warn after tagging so making the appropriate templates more accessible can only help.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a misleading edit summary template as a user message warning. I looked around & didn't see one and didn't see discussion of one in the pages, so I just did it. Inspired by encountering someone who has repeatedly posted the same external link to the Female ejaculation article, and most recently did so with the very false title "Removed spam". I haven't done a template before, so apologies if I've broken wikipedia protocol, or, worse, screwed up the formatting. In fact, I somehow can't figure out how to make it space correctly when linking to the user page parameter.--LQ 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. It now appears like the following. Please let me know if this isn't what you meant. — Sebastian 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop. If you continue to make edits with misleading or inaccurate edit summaries, even if unintentional, you may be blocked from editing.
• Please stop. If you continue to make edits with misleading or inaccurate edit summaries, even if unintentional, as you did at some article, you may be blocked from editing.

Beautiful! Thanks -- you're genius. (And now I see what was happening & what I was doing wrong.) --LQ 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it also, save for one thing. Needs a shorter name. Template:Misleading or Template:Misleadedit or something like that. I could see this being placed in the Template:TestTemplates grid as well, probably in the "Caution" column. --*Spark* 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "wrongsummary2"? The "2" expresses that it "Could be seen as vandalism". — Sebastian 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC), changed 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, since it WP:AGF. Perhaps one stating "wrong summary" at the caution level and another higher up stating "misleading" would be more effective. --*Spark* 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, on rereading the list on the project page I realized that level 3 would be wrong, so I'm correcting my above statement. Please feel free to change your reply, as well.

I think we should AGF as long as possible, so the fact that a template does it is only a sign for the diplomacy of its author, not that it belongs in level 0 ("Good faith edit"). — Sebastian 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A useful template but I have a quibble with the language. Misleads means the act of misleading, a verb. In the context used it apparently is intended as a plural of mislead, but not as misleads is normally defined. As such it sounds jarringly incorrect. Second, why not have a parser function like many similarly situated templates? Finally, you're not adding the template because your guessing that the person engaged in these acts but warning them against doing so again, so why the waffling "if the <misleads> are intended..." How about:

Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise spam, personal attacks, or other inappropriate changes to the content of an article{{#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. If you continue to post such misleading edit summares, you may be blocked for disruption.

--Fuhghettaboutit 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine for wrongsummary3. I don't believe using the term "misleading" is WP:AGF for a lower level warning (wrongsummary2). The user might not understand the purpose of edit summary, might not think their summary was misleading, so to outright accuse them of misleading is not a good idea. For wrongsummary2 I propose:

Please use an accurate [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] for your contributions. A summary which is intentionally misleading in an attempt to disguise spam, personal attacks, or other inappropriate changes to the content of an article could be seen as vandalism or disruption, and you may be blocked.

Well....needs work, but I think that's more appropriate for a lower level. --*Spark* 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I like Fuhghettaboutit's wrongsummary3, and your wrongsummary2 for the case without a parameter. How would you word it if it contained a link to the affected page?

But now I see another problem: Should we really keep the square brackets? What if someone wants to add the link to a diff instead? What if there were several wrong summaries? That would be more likely the lower the level, so we probably really need this for wrongsummary0 or wrongsummary1. After the nice compliment I got above I guess I should be able to answer this myself, but I gotta go now and wanted to raise the question. — Sebastian 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I just came across a case for {{wrongsummary1}}, and I'm creating that template now. — Sebastian 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good template -- I changed "adequately" to "accurately" because I thought it would be more general; inadequacy seems to me like a specific instance of inaccuracy. But YMMV; I thought of it more as a provisional change to get opinions. --LQ 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a few general thoughts in response to cmts above (signed individually to facilitate threading).

1. Multiple wrongful summaries could indicate either intentional behavior or cluelessness, but in general, it would be good if all the templates had some way to "multiplize" them. I've found, recently, that if I revert a vandalism on one page, and look at the user, the user (often an IP address) will have done a bunch of vandalisms, and I can fix a bunch all at once. One good template that handled all would be helpful, but I think it's not just an issue for "wrong summary". --LQ 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. The scale of "wrong" to "misleading" seems right, and helpful; but on the low end I would be very forgiving and gentle in the language, because "accurate" can be really a matter of judgment. My initial proposal was really targeting something that was fairly obviously intended to be misleading, a willful attempt to obscure something inappropriate. I could see having a low-level AGF version of the "willful mislead" that was different from the low-level version of "wrong summary"; that may be too much proliferation, though. --LQ 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the level 1 messages in the editing category on Template:TestTemplates, and I'm quite appalled how harsh some of these are. That may be a topic for a separate discussion, but at least I found nothing there thas would be more forgiving and gentle than what I have in {{wrongsummary1}}. Please feel free to change it, though, if you have a good idea. — Sebastian 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving "Misleading edit summary" to {{wrongsummary3}}, since this seems to be the general agreement. We can always refine it and add {{wrongsummary3}} later. I also added #1 and #3 to Template:TestTemplates. — Sebastian 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comparison with other edit summary templates

I was blind! Just after I added the two, I realized that there already exists a whole row in Template:TestTemplates just for Edit summaries. I'll wait what you guys have to say, but we should clean up the mess. Should we delete the new templates, or are they better than some of the old? — Sebastian 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) }} Reworded 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually blind -- but those notices seemed aimed at "no edit summaries" (and one for "abusive"). I encountered a situation where a person who was engaged in a minor revert war had attempted to disguise with a (deliberately) misleading edit. That was what I was getting at. I agree, that any such templates should be included in the edit summaries row, and not create a whole new row. Or, edit the original templates ... But there are at least three different issues that need to be addressed, whether in a single message at each level of severity, or in separate messages at appropriate levels of severity: (a) no edit summaries; (b) edit summaries that are inaccurate or sloppy or inappropriate in some way; and (c) edit summaries (that appear to be) intended to mislead. --LQ 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to box your comment? We know about this row, I mentioned the grid already. These new templates cover a particular issue better than what's already there. --*Spark* 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it was only necessary for me. I guess I should go see (sic!) an ophthalmologist. :-] Please feel free to remove this line, and to reword your replies, since I changed "we" to "I". — Sebastian 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed {{wrongsummary3}} per above discussion (and in an incredible bit of irony, on a second change to the language of the template, messed up the edit summary with a cut and paste artifact). Since no one had yet created it, I also made {{wrongsummary2}}. Does it strike the correct balance between 1 and 3?--Fuhghettaboutit 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it strikes the right balance in tone, but ... (see next section) --lquilter 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misleading is not just about spam/verboten content

• Somehow, we ended up focusing on summaries that mislead about content that is forbidden. But some of the incidents that inspired me on this template initially were not forbidden content, per se, but attempts to disguise edits. The edits were POV edits in that case, although that was the subject of a protracted debate. But looking at the templates (very good work all of you) they refer only to per se bad content, and the focus ends up being on the bad content--not the edit summary. I'd like to go back in and wordsmith, adding a phrase that covers the other type of misleading edits too, and wordsmith the sentence.

For instance, on Template:Wrongsummary2, change "A recent edit of yours appears to contain spam, a personal attack, or other inappropriate commentary. Please write edit summaries that accurately reflect the changes you made to the article." to "One of your recent edit summaries did not accurately describe your edit. Changes to the content of articles should be accurately described in the edit summary."

On Template:Wrongsummary3, change "Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise inappropriate content such as spam, personal attacks, or inappropriate commentary about the content or editors of the article. If you continue to post such misleading edit summaries, you may be blocked for disruption." to "Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise changes to the content of the article, to comment on the article or editors, or to disguise inappropriate content such as spam or personal attacks. If you continue to post such misleading edit summaries, you may be blocked for disruption."

Thoughts? --lquilter 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we've already got templates for spam and the others, these templates should be warning for incorrect edit summaries. --WikiSlasher 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I'm making these changes now (and also fixing the help info to include links to the right template names). --lquilter 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template warning or informing users about changing spellings? John Reaves 02:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it starts with Template:Lang0 and works up from there. There's also Template:Spellcheck for general spelling issues. See Template:TestTemplates for the complete list. --*Spark* 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to give people a heads up:

The current CSD nomination templates (are generally though not exclusively) for telling users that the article they have just created is up for deletion. Not only am I going to tidy up and condense some of the templates e.g. as done with Template:Empty-warn, I will be adding another set of similar templates for use by Admins upon CSD deletion. This is because, obviously, some of the info in the former is not relevant in the latter (e.g. Hangon requestl) and vice versa.

I hope that makes sense - and that Admins will find them useful. Any questions leave them here or on my talk page, cheers Lethaniol 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

There has been an issue whether CSD warn templates for user talk pages should have a heading or not e.g. Template:nn-warn - have opened a discussion up here Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD templates - I suppose please comment there so consensus can be reached in one place. Cheers Lethaniol 14:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to know if there is any templates for users spamming Speedy deltion tags, because I didn't find any Thanks Dread Specter 04:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice! Tvoz 08:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this page will be undergoing overhaul in the next month or so, due to work being carried out at the WikiProject for user warnings. An idea of the new structure maybe found here, any problems please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I saw this page, and I'm impressed with the work and improvement: tip o' the hat to all who were involved! Akradecki 20:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I use {{removewarn}} myself; I'm as annoyed as anyone else by vandals. But it just occurred to me that none of the vandalism templates say anything about not removing them. How is a newbie supposed to know this? Moreover, people are free to delete personally written statements from their talk page. By common sense, many people will treat a template, which is basically akin to a form letter, with less, rather than more respect. One of my principles is to not expose people to unnecessary unpleasant surprises. So, my question is: Should we include a warning "don't remove this" in every template? — Sebastian 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that the person is removing it to show themselves in a better light, not to clean up their talk page. Perhaps removewarn should also tell them that if the warning annoy them so much they can just get a new account. Jon513 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - but who are we to scold them for that? Most people want to show themselves in a better light, and I've seen even admins delete questions on their talk page for no apparent reason other than that they didn't like them. Good idea about the new account, though. — Sebastian 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a new account to dodge a final warning, that new account can be blocked, along with your original account. A bit more on-topic, I do agree that certain (not all) warning templates should state not to remove warnings, such as the level 4 warnings and the block templates, just as long as it doesn't try to enforce that policy, as no policy on that exists. You may want to look here. --Iced Kola 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user should not create another account to put themself in "a better light". The vandalous edits are still in their history and the warnings can serve as an aid to analysizing/blocking Admins. The only valid reason to remove warning templates is sensible archival. Simply deleting them won't do. No exceptions, no way out. In fact, I just created Template:TYWLAM. I think it gets the message across. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss that on Template talk:TYWLAM — Sebastian 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Iced Kola, for the link. It shouldn't have been so small: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings.

Should we adjourn the discussion here until a solution is found there, or should we, at least temporarily, change removewarn to include something like : "You may not be aware of it, but ..."? — Sebastian 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay to leave it as is. They may not have known; but that's what this message does -- it tells them why the messages are there. I don't think the message currently assumes bad faith, either; it offers suggestions for legitimate reasons the person might have been blanking and gives them links to help with that. --lquilter 15:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add {{TYWLAM}} to the WP:WARN page then? I don't see it there. And where do we report people who keep removing warnings after a {{TYWLAM}}? WP:AIV, if it's considered to be vandalism, or WP:ANI? Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 11:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that placing these messages on a user talk page can be taken as a hostile action, even vandalism by some, and often only escalate situations. They are especially problematic when placed by people who are the targets of this behaviour. Perhaps their should be some cautioning documentation as such? At the same time, I think people who feel that they are targets can have some templates to help them notify offending editors. Maybe a afg0 and an npa0? --Ronz 21:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC) afg0, npa0[reply]

Hi,

This is just a reminder that the multi-level warnings on this project page will be changing on the 22nd January. The new templates are currently up for review here. Please examine the new templates, read the project / talk pages and we'd be very interested in your suggestions and opinions. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new template to deal with users deleting other people's comments. It does not appear that there is currently a template to deal with this vandalism, so I created one. It can be found here: Template:Commentdel. Refinement on the template would be much appreciated. -- Eptin 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completed discussions?? The standard on most talk pages I've seen is to keep them, or sometimes archive them. Even for one's own comments, it still seems unusual. DMacks 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyone know why the userpage vandalism tags are tpv rather than, say, upv? This has come up on the user warnings unification project thingie too. I'm just curious. Rawling 13:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it stands for talk page vandalism — check tpv2. The levels of this warning seem to differ on whether they're for talk page abuse or user page vandalism. Feezo (Talk) 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which tag should I use for someone who has blanked the description section of an image? Where the copyright tags and so on should go? SGGH 12:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blank templates {{blank}}, {{blank2}} etc. should be fine for that. --WikiSlasher 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, Just to let you know as previously discussed the WP:TT page will be changing on Monday to this page here. Also I've started a discussion on WP:UW about when that project is finished that it's documentation and all it's pages become merged here. The post is here and I would appreciate your input. Please reply there. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the name of {{blp2}}, you would expect it to be a level 2 warning. In fact, it's level 4. It would really help if all warning templates that were numbered included the number in the template name rather than merely a number.

Also, I would appreciate it if each template included text, not just a HTML comment, that a warning was Level X. I say that as I need to know which level to bump the user to when I warn them about something new. If I need to use a BLP template, which one will I select? Presumably, that will be one level higher than what the user is at now. That currently requires that I view the source for the entire page -- even though I only need to add a section. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:TT shortcut still lists the old-style warning templates - does that page need updating to match this one? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does, yeah. --Brad Beattie (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny new user talk templates! And so well organized! Neat. :) (good work, those involved) · j e r s y k o talk · 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Excellent work. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we start adding in the tooltip codes yet, or wait until this is more settled? FYI, the tltt code adds a tooltip help box when you hover over the first set of curly braces. Example: {{tltt|This is a sample tooltip}} Hersfold ^(talk|work) 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally suggest waiting a couple of weeks. A change like this will not be easy to implement and the work we've done certainly isn't set in concrete and is liable to further modification. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*salutes* Will do! Hersfold ^(talk|work) 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the update to new templates, I'm wondering what we mean to do with the old ones. From what I can tell, they still exist and I haven't seen any notices saying "don't use this anymore; we've updated". Are they considered out of date, and we should all switch to the new ones, or are they still considered OK? Also, since I can't seem to find this anywhere, could someone tell me what the motivation was for making the change? Thanks! Heimstern Läufer 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were mostly intended to standardize the whole system - previously, we had several templates fitting the same purpose and the same level. Now, they're a little more specifically tailored toward each thing. As for whether the old ones are out of date, I would assume we're supposed to start using these now. If an old template is in use on a talk page, leave it, of course, but don't add more of the old templates at this point. I think. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... please tell me we won't phase out the {{blatantvandal}} template? I can't find any template in the new list that performs the same function, namely, allowing you to start immediately with a serious warning. Heimstern Läufer 01:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many non-standard templates won't be phased out. Some will redirect to standard warnings if they're redundant, but others will continue to exist outside the standardized system. That said, you can start out with {{uw-test4}}; the levels designate the severity of the warning, not a required order. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 06:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you don't have to go sequentially and all. Still, I've never liked starting with the third and fourth level warnings, as they provide insufficient context to the recipient. That's where the {{blatantvandal}} template is useful. Heimstern Läufer 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that each of the new templates seems to start with a pound sign (#), which formats the whole template to fit into a numbered list. I assumed at first this was to keep track of how many warnings a user had received (#1, #2, #3...), but it doesn't appear to work. If that is the purpose of the pound signs, we probably need to work it so that it does work - if not, I would suggest we work on removing them, as it makes the templates look somewhat silly. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you leaving a blank line between the templates? This will stop the numbered list counting up correctly. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I'll try it out. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But most times the previous warnings are in their own sections, which will also prevent this from working properly. And what if one previous message is a {{uw-spam1}} and one is a {{uw-npa1}}? The numbers would then not match the warning levels. This new "feature" seems somewhat problematic; I personally could live without it. -- Satori Son 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tending to agree, both for Satori Son's reason and because I don't like the look of the warning messages without a line in between them: it looks terribly cluttered to me. Heimstern Läufer 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too. It isn't quite working for me. Lots of people warning with a new section header like "Your edits to article name" and then the vandal switches to another article. If I stick the second warning under the first section to get the numbers right, the section heading is no longer relevant. I see that the suggested method of issuing warnings is to make a section called Warnings and use dated subsections. The problem I have with this it that it differs quite a bit of usual practice where new messages are on the bottom of a Talk page. For IP vandals, it's likely to be okay, but vandals with accounts, it might not work so well. This recommended format will also not work with the bot-issued warnings unless the bots are altered to try to find the correct dated section. The numbers just become irrelevant or out of order. -- Gogo Dodo 05:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also problematic if users have bots automatically archiving their talk page messages. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just conducted a completely unscientific survey of about 30 recently "warned" user talk pages and didn't find a single instance where the number feature in the new warning templates is working as apparently intended. This "feature" seems like a solution in search of a problem, I perceive no value added. Just my 2¢. -- Opelio 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. It places some kind of artificial importance on the accumulated quantity of warnings, as if someone with 6 warnings is necessarily twice as bad a vandal as one with only 3 (and vice versa). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the biggest fan of the numbering, but it can work ;). The main problem is the headers... Can someone dig the discussion that was rejected about it? -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good example, but most IP pages are much more complicated that that: a {{test1}} and {{test2}} three months ago, a {{spam1}} through {{spam3}} last month, a {{blank2}} and {{test3}} last week, etc., etc., all with different headers. The coded syntax numbering will almost always be a mess. Is there anyone who strongly disagrees with simply pre-numbering them based on the level of warning? (I will also look through the archives and see if I can find previous discussions on this.) -- Satori Son 14:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thought being given to redirecting the old templates (like test, bv, and the like)? Or some sort of standardized message we can use to notify more experienced editors to check the page for the new standards? PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the non-standard templates will eventually be redirected to standard warnings if they're redundant; others will continue to exist outside the standardized system. That won't be done in the very near future, though. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Multi-level 4 for pinfo4 and block for pinfo5? Do they need a rename to fit with the current schema? -- Avi 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bump: -- Avi 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• when I used template uw-joke2 I got subst:#ifeq:{{{sig}}}|n| |Xiahou 02:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)} (both temp and error have brackets took them out to show here) Plus I have to type | then the article name. Before I would just copy paste the test template. I can go to 'click here to show warnings' but then I loose the good descriptions of what each warning is for. Plus they are different looking with subst in them. but they are easier to use by copy and pasting and don't have the error. So what are editors who are not reading every little bit of discussion and policy who just patrol recent changes supposed to use? Is there something black and white easy to read without searching thorugh discussions that has exactly what policy and warning templates to use?[reply]

  Try substituting the template with {{subst:uw-joke2}}, which is standard practice. You don't have to specify the article name. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• also the whole 1. thing before each warning? whats that about?--Xiahou 02:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The warnings are numbered and block messages are bulleted. This makes it very easy to know when a user was blocked and how many warnings they have received since their last block; see the Layout guidelines. I'm not sure when they were added to the templates, though; that feature was rejected before and done manually. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• another thing I don't know where to ask this but a discussion about warning templates someone here should know. What is the guideline/policy on giving them when you didn't do the edit? Has happened to me in the past and just now 2 times in a row. I after checking the history to make sure it was me that changed the vandals edit go to warn him and someone else has. Is this acceptable. I understand as long as they are warned it matters. Yet isn't there just editor courtesy in not doing that to another editor. Faster than I could cut and paste it happens sometimes. Rather frustrating.--Xiahou 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no guideline about warning a user someone else reverted, but it's generally considered rude and discouraged. Sometimes it happens by accident, though. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  It happens very often, since you can have 2 (or more) people reverting the same edit and not be aware of that fact (if you go back to the same version, nobody gets an error). With server caching, the vandalism can stay a few instants even after being reverted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do feel somewhat the fool when I first went to RC patrol today I opened up the template page and the templates were not there. I found this page by following links. I just now noticed some editors using the old ones I went back to the original test template page and saw this at the top of the history -- 02:31, 23 January 2007 KarlBunker (Talk | contribs) (RVing back to restore the templates to this page-- So I guess I can go back to using those and take it that this project isn't 'offical' yet. Will they take over that page when they are?--Xiahou 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The project gained consensus in its own space with heavy advertisement, but many users did not participate in the discussion and have objections that were consequently not addressed. Hopefully this will encourage more users to take a look at the WikiProject on user warnings. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  The 2 systems are thought to be working in parallel for a while, we didn't want to force people to change their habits if they don't want to :). The idea though, is to replace the old templates eventually -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any talk page templates should add you sig for you. That is a no-no. I keep having to go back in and remove duplicate sigs. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can turn it of (maybe we should do the contrary and turn it on manually). I think the idea is that your sig wouldn't appear in the warning text otherwise, but below it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If adding a sig block at the end of a template causes the sig to appear on the line below that's just because the template is not properly written. Most common problem is to add linebreaks between the end of the message text and a noinclude block of documentation or whatever at the bottom. Avoid that and a "normal" sig should work just fine. --Sherool (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate having the sig automatically included in the warning template. I tried about four times to get the syntax right here, then gave up and went to an old template. Could we just go back to the way things used to be, as far as sigs are concerned? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to subst the template - at least I think that is what broke it. You should be doing this with all templates on user talk pages, AFAIK. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the templates break if you don't subst them. Maybe we should add a big red line asking to subst when it is included without being substed? -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, could we make it an "opt in" kind of thing, rather than an "opt out"? I don't want to have to always be checking templates, to see whether there's a sig included or not. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always subst warning messages. I don't like the opt-out part. More typing for me. As for reminding users to subst, I don't understand how it works, but if you can get it working, great. You could make {{subst}} (or its replacement) obsolete. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been away over the last few hours I seem to be on a different zone to most of you. Thanks to all of your for your comments and feedback and for correcting the little errors. Apart from some wording issues on copyvio, and the use of vand4 with respect to some templates, the main issue in my mind is the numbering system and the included signature. Now neither of these are caste in concrete and I can remove them both pretty quickly. So can I suggest a quick straw poll as if we want to make good with this system, this issue shouldn't really last more than 24 hours. I realise that for some you, these changes of have jumped out of the woodwork, so thankyou for your patience and understanding. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish to have an included signature?

Decision remove the automatically included signature. I will remove them now. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - good idea, but lacks consistency with those templates that don't have a signature. I now have to remember which to sign and which are already done. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I am too used to entering my sig myself. The last thing I want is to remember not to enter it. If I tried, I might forget it when there is no "assistance". Will (Talk - contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's much quicker to not need to sign, but we need to make sure all the warning templates follow the same pattern. --Brad Beattie (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It'll be a pain at first, and we'll make mistakes. But I think it will be better in the long run. Heimstern Läufer 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The signatures are not intuitive, can break complex signatures (for example, I sign with "~~~" which places User:Pathoschild/signature), and are redundant with HagermanBot when the templates are substituted anyway. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Much quicker, but like BradBeatle said, they should all do it. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once the implementation of the multi level warnings has calmed down in a few weeks, we will start looking at the single issue templates. What ever is decided here will be applied to the other templates as well. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per concerns of Pathoschild and Will. JoshuaZ 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Automates a tedious task. Consider that it may help more editors than it "harms". By the way, a review of the project page shows that all 79 new "uw-" templates are consistent with respect to this feature. — Opelio 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - HagermanBot doesn't seem to get them all anyway. On the other hand, it does make it harder to clean up after someone who has not substituted the warnings, but this can probably be automated once things settle down. Mark Chovain 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Per Ollie and Will, and because it makes it hard to do anything other than use the canned message. If I want to add an additional comment or something, that winds up going after the included signature. Helpful, but also some growing pains. If there are parts of this that can be fixed or will get better once other parts of the new warnings templates go into effect, why not wait until later before doing this? DMacks 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just a question on the additional text, is this anything that couldn't be included in the second string of the parser? Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would work fine. Sometimes I lump a few warnings together via one canned template with a manual comment "same goes for...pages". Or "also, please don't create the same article under multiple names" instead of the whole templated warning for each. DMacks 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Personally, I like it, but I find the oppose votes persuasive. Instead of having it part of these templates, would be better to raise the possiblity adding to My preferences an option for "Always sign automatically on talk pages"? Accurizer 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on above commment -- There are many times when I am replying to different parts of the post. Sometimes I find that several people have replied since I last checked. I then have to reply to each reply individually, usually with that previous post. So if A replied to me and B replied to them, if I reply to both, I want my reply to A with A's post. That then forces me to sign twice. Furthermore, if my lastest reply wasn't the last post (C replied to B), then I don't want my sig added automatically at all. Manual sigs are much safer. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Will, is your comment in response to Khukri's comment or mine? Thanks, Accurizer 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You. Please note how difficult it would have been for us to deal with automatic sigs in this location. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I understand your point. To clarify my suggestion, if it were a user preference, those who like it could enable it while those who do not could disable it. Accurizer 11:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, though I recognise it can be convenient. I used to always sign -- ~~~~, then today I changed my raw sig to include the -- to fit with the new spam warning templates so it would again look like -- ~~~~, now I find the vandalism warning templates are signing me as ----~~~~, and even if I changed my preferences again there would still be no space in my sig, which I consider important. I have been signing -- -- ~~~~ all over the place today. Please let me decide what my sig should be. Per User:Where above. Thanks. -- -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's really, really irritating. If it stays, I'll probably just stop using templates. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose some people (like me) has a doubledash (--) or arrow (→) before the sig, and other not.. _→AzaToth 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Avi 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, there's no reason to make signatures mandatory, and putting them inside the template gives signers less freedom. -- nae'blis 04:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish to have the warning numbering system included?

Decision remove the automatically included numbering system. I will remove them now Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too fragile; minimal gain vs added extra effort (for editors) to making work properly ("no extra blank line", "no additonal header", or other changes to talk page formatting), which is annoying for oldbies and raises bar for newbie editors. DMacks 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per DMacks - it's just too much added complexity. Good idea, just doesn't work within the limitations of the software. —Krellis 19:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per DMacks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral will be OK when people are used to it, I think. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my reasoning given above. Heimstern Läufer 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Limited Conditional Support -- My support is limited to real warnings. Don't make messages that should be friendly look like warnings. Update: After having seen the new warnings in action for a while, I think the warning level needs to be part of the template rather than an <ol>-type list. Perhaps a note toward the end saying some like "This warning is level 2 (out of 4)." Otherwise, I prefer the numbering be removed. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per DMacks. — Opelio 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, at least on the "good faith" type messages. I'm not as sure about the higher-level warnings (although it seems like unnecessary complexity), but on the friendly messages it makes me feel like I'm WP:BITEing the newbies. BryanG^(talk) 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I was on the fence but BryanG convinced me. --ElKevbo 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This would require a big change in the way we format user talk pages for very little return. Since all of the various messages aggregate to the total number, and warnings could have been removed anyway, you still have to check the page history to get an accurate count. -- Satori Son 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I don't think it's as big an issue as some people are making out, but I don't really see it as a big win either. Mark Chovain 22:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing to oppose as per physicq (waaay below) Mark Chovain 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it becomes confusing if you start with something other than a level 1 warning. Also, if a bot leaves a warning, the numbering starts over unless the next editor reformats the bot's warning (see User talk:68.187.1.241). If there is a decision to keep it, I would prefer specifying the level number in the template rather than using #. Accurizer 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Regarding bots generating warnings, I think two items should apply.

1. All bots must use the same template we use, only with something like "Automatically generated message" tacked on.
2. All bots must scan existing warnings and use recent ones to bump up the warning level.

Will (Talk - contribs) 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per my reasons stated in other thread. Remove both numbering and bulleting. -- Gogo Dodo 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Seems unnecessary and several concerns have been raised above. Prolog 23:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It looks funny in practice, and doesn't work unless all previous warnings were given with the exact correct templates. Very often, this is not the case, as in the link I provided. -- Renesis (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per many of the above reasons esp. DMacks. I also like to sometimes add a friendly hello before the warning message. This will now not be possible. -- -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The numbering/bulleting system is not useful at all, bordering on <sarcastic teacher's voice>"now, let's count how many warnings you have, and then after [insert number] we're gonna block you."</sarcastic teacher's voice> Also, not all warnings start at level 1, so may cause confusion when there are only two numbered warnings and a block. Borders on annoying, as a bullet point for the block notice suddenly comes out of nowhere for no reason. And I just noticed that I rehashed all the oppose rationales... --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose yet it seems not many if any are for it yet it was changed to these new templates on the main page with the numbers still involved. Are they staying even though it seems MOST are against it?--Xiahou 01:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as fast a blank line is introduced, the numbering restarts, and when the code is just a big groups, it's more difficult to see what warnings a user have bee given. _→AzaToth 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Avi 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. When you attach a number to a level 1 message, it changes the whole tone, from "Hey, thanks for testing out Wikipedia, and here's where you might want to continue your testing" to "This is your first warning". I think it undercuts the assumption of good faith that should be implicit in a level 1 message with the implication that "We're onto you, bucko, and we're counting your transgressions." -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just crystallized my concerns for me. Proposal: All templates display a code inside the message (rather than with # at the start of the line). However, while levels 2-4 would use a number, level 1 would show "friendly message" instead (except for {{uw-vandalism1}} which is rather obvious that it is not "friendly"). Would anyone back this? Will (Talk - contribs) 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be completely blind and/or stupid, but are templates like {{drmspeedy}} and {{drmafd}} not included on here? Is that for a reason? -- Merope 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it either. The description for the {{uw-delete}} series does say "Page blanking, removal of wikipedia content and procedural messages", which could be construed to refer to these (under "procedural messages"). But I really think we ought to continue to use separate templates for this purpose (i.e., {{drmspeedy}} and {{drmafd}} or something similar. Heimstern Läufer 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I did the single level warnings table in an afternoon, the removal templates you mentioned can come under the deletion templates, adding extra details using the secondary string. But I had thought about these two as I was going through the 400 odd templates that are included in Category:User warning templates and didn't include them by mistake. In the long term however I (and this is just my opinion) think it would be better to have a template for the deletion of any procedural templates. Not having one for speedy tag, afds, improvement, or any other template that could be deleted. With regards to the two you mentioned please add them and this applies to any anyone reading this if your favorite template is missing add them to the single issue tables for now. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of Wikipedia now has the nofollow tag should we note that on the spam warnings to discourage spammings? JoshuaZ 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats a nofollow tag? --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nofollow is a tag which prevents google and other major search engines from counting a link for ranking purposes. See This report on the new Wikipedia settings. JoshuaZ 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the following wording sound as an added sentence "Since Wikipedia uses Nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings." JoshuaZ 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short n simaple says it best in my opinion. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having the

<!-- {{uw-npa4}} -->

comment on a separate line makes any accidental text added after the transclusion (for example, manually adding ~~~~ when forgetting it's already included:) get mis-formatted. For example:

{{subst:uw-npa4}} ~~~~

becomes

1. This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. DMacks 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The newline before the comment pushes the text after the template onto a new line, so the space between the }} and the text goes at the beginning of the line. Moving the comment in-line with the actual template text makes the text after the }} go in-line with the template text, and gives formatting as one might expect for text in a line. DMacks 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do a mass find replace tomorrow, and also do any changes depending on the straw poll above. Cheers for the heads up. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've sorted your problem on all the templates when I removed the sigs and numbering. Just do a double check please and let me know if there are any further problems. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had time to read through all of the discussion, and maybe it's in the grid and I'm not seeing it, but is there a new template to be used in warning IP addresses not to vandalize? Thanks Tvoz | talk 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the vandalism type, you could use uw-vandalism1 - 4, but please don't forget if you have any doubts on what to use, all the old temaplates still exist in the short term. See the project page for details. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could appropriate templates allow a parameter that triggers something like "A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me." to be added? The word "link" would link to the URL passed as the new parameter. You would pass a diff URL. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about templates for illegal use of fair use images? This would include putting images into user pages, templates, user boxes, etc. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the equivalent of the old {{talkinarticle}}? I never liked how it forced you to let it add a header (which prevented me from using the + tab to add the warning), but I see nothing handling that role in the new system. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one at the moment as this warning comes under single issue templates. As I said above I went through very quickly the Warnings category and with 400 odd templates it was obvious I was going to miss one with all the duplications going on there. So for the inconvenience I apologise. In about two weeks once everything has calmed down here with the multi-level warnings, I intend to go back to WP:UW and restart the whole process again but with respect to the single issue templates. Now most of you are aware of the work we are doing I envisage that it won't take three and a half months to roll out the next batch, as I'm sure most editors here will get stuck in, and we can include, re-structure, re-name, standardise, re-direct or delete the remaining 300 odd templates. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal that these user warning templates remain semi-protected and not become permanently fully protected at some point. For those interested, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:High-risk templates#Proposal to keep new user messages semi-protected only. Thank you,  Satori Son 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would the next admin who wanders by delete this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/old_TT please. As Template:TestTemplates was deprecated and not modified I've changed all the links, and the one I created above isn't necessary. Easier to write it here than tag it, as someone will else will have to do more investigation than an admin here who knows what we're doing. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

discussion moved over from WP:UW

We really need to address the extensive amount of links (533) to Template:TestTemplates (and, I would assume, other similiar templates which refer to the outdated formats of user talk templates). We should have a bot change all links to direct to WP:UTM. But then again, I'm no logistical master, so my opinions may not be helpful. Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and look at it today. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've had a look, the vast majority were user pages, talk pages of varying types, logs and archives. I've been through and done most of the live pages, such as helpdesk, WP:VAND, etc, but user and talk pages I don't think are particularly necessary for us to come through and change everything over for everyone. If you think it is then I'll get a mate with a bot to do it, as I ain't doing all 500 using AWB. cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the goals of the WP:UW project is to "Publicity campaign for project, to make users aware of impending changes." What better way than to have a bot go around and say "Replacing depricated template. Applying changes to User warnings, see WP:UTM" or something. Just my opinion. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discussion moved over from WP:UW

The 'mos', 'notcensored', and 'unsourced' templates scale up to notification of an impending block for vandalism... but the WP:VAND policy lists all three as specifically not vandalism. Having these as 'warning' templates of any sort is IMO a very bad idea as it encourages users to toss them at each other as a form of harassment. The new template designs use a single very common image and link only to heavily linked policy pages... making it very difficult to track their use. However, the one case thus far where these templates have been used without substitution perfectly illustrates my point... see User talk:Episodiod. Four 'warnings' for a single set of perfectly reasonable edits to an article. It serves no purpose except to encourage people to insult each other rather than discussing the issues. In this case the 'delete' series was also being misapplied, but that's always been a problem when people mis-characterize any text removal they disagree with as 'malicious blanking'. The same is potentially true of the 'tpv' templates if they start being used to tell people that they can't remove comments from their user talk pages. The mos, notcensored, and unsourced templates refer to content dispute issues and ought to be directed to dispute resolution processes... not false threats of blocks for vandalism. Because they aren't vandalism. The 'delete' templates might benefit from being updated to indicate that removals which are clearly not malicious also are not vandalism and should be handled through dispute resolution. And the 'tpv' templates might want to specify that they apply to '...removals from talk pages, other than your own,...'. --CBD 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll leave it a day or so, then I'll remove them unless anyone objects. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've removed the link to {{uw-vandalism4}} from the three above on the table, if an admin could delete the redirects {{uw-mos4}}, {{uw-notcensored4}} & {{uw-unsourced4}} that would be appreciated. The follow up question is that if they are not vandalism are any of them blockable, if so then an actual level4 warning needs to be created, if someone would be so kind. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, there are three kinds of people who do not use edit summaries:

1. new people who do not know any better
2. lazy people who cannot be bothered to fill them out
3. sociopaths who are indifferent to social norms and/or the feelings of frustration they cause in others

Looking at WP:UTM, it seams to me that all of the talk templates on this topic ({{Summary}}, {{Summary2}}, and {{Editsummary}}) are geared for type-1 people. Have there been any thoughts about creating "please use edit summaries!" templates for type-2 or type-3 people? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two normally will be persuaded by a gentle reminder, and we can also add a nice note to it saying if you find that you occasionally forget, that you can check a box in your preferences to give you a prompt. The third however if you heap warning upon warning and they will ignore you in general. I personally haven't seen this, but if someone is ignoring this then they are as often as not up to mischief of other sorts anyway. My question would be where would you go with someone who doesn't provide summaries you'd give them a level 1, 2 then a 3, then where? Certainly not WP:AIV, not WP:DR, WP:M, WP:ARBCOM or anything similar. There is nothing in the guideline and are we going to block them for it? I think it's imperitive to have a well laid out direction of what our re-course is, if we are ignored. Until that is done, then I suggest all we can do is give them one off warning. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not just new people who do not know any better. Some veteran editors leave out summaries, too. Unless punishment is enacted on those who do not bother, however, these messages are the best we can do. The current messages are already too heavy-handed for some recipients; at least they feel that way. A more effective encouragement may be setting a lower threshold for the bot that reminds people when they don't leave edit summaries often enough to start contacting them. A link to the mathbot would also be very useful, if we can insert the username individually. Xiner (talk, email) 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Xiner about the existing warnings being perhaps too heavy-handed for type-1 people. I also absolutely agree with the usefulness in including a link to the Mathbot tool. Here is the message I normally use:

However while my message often works very well with type-1 people, I am not sure how effective it is with type-2 or type-3 people. There are a couple of editors with 9k - 12k edits (but edit summary usages lower than 20%) who have multiple copies of my message in their talk archives. I try not to be obnoxious and leave the same message multiple times on a talk page, however if the editor in question has moved my message to their archives and they edit an article on my watchlist again ... --Kralizec! (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add one more group: Vandals and spammers. While some might add a summary to avoid detection, most vandal edits that I spot have no summary or only a section link for the summary. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Will; the vast majority of casual vandalism has a blank edit summary. The more experienced vandals fill in the edit summary on the theory that newpage patrollers will ignore edits where the summary says something innocuous like "minor edit", but those people are a tiny minority. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I have run into those sorts of intentionally misleading edit summaries in the past, I have used {{Wrongsummary1}} , {{Wrongsummary2}} , or {{Wrongsummary3}} . --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about them. However, I never needed them. Is there an equivalent in the new warning system? Will (Talk - contribs) 01:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The other big red flag I watch for is having red linked user and/or talk pages. Those edits draw more scrutiny than others. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain exactly that point to an anon editor a few months ago. He was making hundreds of legitimate edits to the day of the year pages, so I sent him a note to let him know that it would really help us out if he could fill in the edit summaries, because anon edits, with a redlink user page and blank edit summaries "fit the profile", so all of his edits triggered extra scrutiny by newpage patrollers. He immediately deleted my message and kept on editing without edit summaries. I waited a week and sent him another note; he deleted it and continued editing. At that point, there was nothing more I could do, so I dropped it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds familiar. I have a pet peeve with legitimate users that clear their page as soon as they read a message. It leaves me with no way to reply or add more data. It also means that I can't quickly tell if I already sent them such a message. It is worse for IP users. However, the most troublesome IP users, legit or not, are those that use a new IP for each session. That's a real pain. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you where going to replace # with * or :, not this can happen:

{{subst:uw-vandalism1|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-vandalism2|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-vandalism3|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-vandalism4|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~

gives

_→AzaToth 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not unique to these templates; you'll see the same behaviour with any template if you don't insert line breaks. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

true, but I feel it's better to know it will always start on a new line, so the alternatives are:

:{{subst:uw-vandalism1|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
:{{subst:uw-vandalism2|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
:{{subst:uw-vandalism3|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
:{{subst:uw-vandalism4|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~

that gives

or

*{{subst:uw-vandalism1|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
*{{subst:uw-vandalism2|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
*{{subst:uw-vandalism3|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
*{{subst:uw-vandalism4|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~

that gives

_→AzaToth 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want the templates to include automatic line breaks. I frequently insert comments before or after the template; including line breaks in the template would interfere with that. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no problem adding comments after, as putting comment before the warning, I think that is not a big problem. I feel it's better to be able to ensure that no warning is placed right after a previous warning, thus creating an incomprehensive block of text. _→AzaToth 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't see the problem here...what's wrong with saying you need to hit the Enter key if you want a paragraph break, just like anywhere else on Wikipedia? Adding higher level formatting commands to the beginning of those templates (#, *, :) removes a lot of flexibility in how they are used. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran a check with the old test warnings, and as Jim said in this regards the new system is no different to the previous system. It was never my intention to replace the # with bullets, it was just about finding out what people wanted and removing them quickly if needs be, which seemed to be the general concensus. I can add line breask to them all or add any other symbol if you wish. Run a quick poll to find out what people think, but lets make it quick before we keep choping and changing the overall appearance. I personally wouldn't be in favour, but as ever it's what everyone else wants and I'll do it. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jim Douglas and Khukri: best to leave as is, which is the same as the current system where users can manually add a <br/> or : if they want to. Also, having an image on every template really makes things clearer even if the messages happen to run together here and there (best new feature!). -- Satori Son 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are {{test}} and all the others now deprecated? Λυδαcιτγ 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm not entirely, the old system will still exist for some weeks to come whilst we work out the bugs and any syntax issues in the new system. Please remember this new system is only applicable to multi issue templates, that's templates you are likely to issue more than once with varying levels of warning. I have tried to list most of the more important single issue templates on the table project pages as well but it's clear with some 400 odd templates in total, some will be missing.

For the template you mentioned {{Test}} this you can certainly consider deprecated and, depending on the offence, if it is vandalism issue use {{uw-vandalism1}} or if you feel it is an actual editing test then {{uw-test1}}. Please bear in mind though that the test warnings are no longer the catch all for vandals, we have expanded the selection at your disposal and created the vandalism temaplate to specifically deal with vandalism. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, but as you can see I've put a deprecated notice at Template:TestTemplatesSmall, which is transcluded into many of the old templates. Is that all right? Λυδαcιτγ 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that {{test4im}} is also one that I used a lot (and there's no similar ones in the new warnings). - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use {{test4im}} every day, but it definitely has its place. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. We still need this one and {{blatantvandal}}, and neither has an equivalent in the new system. Heimstern Läufer 00:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we make im-versions of all lvl 4 templates? _→AzaToth 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created Template:WarningsUsage from Template:TestTemplatesSmall, to be used as generic usage guidelines with the new templates on the talk pages, documentation subpages, and/or noincluded into the template pages themselves. You can see it used at Template talk:Uw-vandalism1. Where should I use it? Λυδαcιτγ 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the templates, as now use the subst=subst: trick, or should it only using <includeonly>subst:</includeonly>, also, then, should the parameter 1 and 2 be changed to {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|article... [[{{{1}}}]]|...}} and {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|...}} to ensure that it always only outputs clean text, and no forgotten variables and defaults. _→AzaToth 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subst parameter is preferable, since the template will not break when not substituted. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it won't work as you want to, for example:

{{subst:Uw-vandalism1|subst=subst:}}

results in

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to [[:, such as those you made to [[:{{{1}}}]],]], have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed as they could be considered to be vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

_→AzaToth 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the structure of this page rather confusing; it took me at least 5 minutes to find a template that I needed, which had apparently been removed. Templates that have been merged should probably be listed somewhere... in fact, a table with the old template names and their new equivalents would be awesome.

Would anyone mind if I divided the long list of templates into categories (content-related, maintenance tags, etc)? I have just joined WP:UW, whose goals I have long been interested in anyway. Does anyone mind if I try to merge WP:UW/O with WP:UTM without betraying the goals of WikiProject user warnings? If the goal of WP:UTM is easy access, this has certainly not been achieved... I might also suggest WP:DISCUSS, which may have already been done on the WikiProject talk page :(

One additional problem I have with the template renaming is that they take longer to type. Fractionally, yes, but when vandal-fighting, typing something that's much quicker is much, much more preferable. But oh well. Gracenotes^T § 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]