Template talk:Repeated IP abuse

message: Personally, I preferred the yellow, stood out more.  My eyes are in their mid-30's and didn't mind.  I dont' really care about the vandal's eyes.  :)  Wikibofh(talk) 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not supposed to be obnoxious. We got some template guidelines for talkpages which we should stick to.SoothingR 23:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Color

message: Why is the width 100% and not 80%? Off! 02:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want it to be 80%?  100% would seem to be the most efficient use of the space on the screen.  Rossami (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be more discreet, and more readable and ethical with all text in a central area. --Off! 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ummm... you lost me there.  When I switch it to 80% and preview it, the template changes from 2 lines deep to 3 lines deep on my screen.  Since it's a colored template, that appears to make it less discrete.  The word-wrap does nothing that I can see to impact readability one way or the other.  And I really don't know what you mean by "ethical".  Please explain?  Rossami (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Clarification: I agree that different widths can look more balanced.  I was responding to Off!'s comment that the 80% width made it more "discrete" which I interpreted as "takes fewer lines on the page" - an assertion which I do not believe can be true.  Going to a narrower screen width could be the same number of lines or more lines but cannot take less lines unless you simultaneously changes something else like font size.  I will take your suggestion to propose a change to the standard at MediaWiki talk:Common.css.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Rossami (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for me, making the width 80% would make the box narrower without making it any taller.  So yes, for me the 80% version would indeed clearly be more discreet.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width=100% 

message: Is this a template that should only be put on by admins or if anyone comes across an ip that seems to be getting blocked a lot can they put it on?--Crossmr 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably shouldn't be used by an anon or very new user but anyone actively working on one of the Vandalism Patrols should be able to apply the template.  Just be sure to check the block log carefully and be sure of your facts before applying it.  Remember that sometimes a long list is the result of multiple admins blocking in rapid succession for a single event or that the list can be inflated if someone has to reset the block to a shorter time in order to fix a problem of collateral damage.  Rossami (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: Is it really necessary to substitute this template? It only has 444 uses and some of them can be removed, as they are in inappropriate places. I hate unnecessary substitution because the wording of the message cannot be modified on the templates already placed, and the template code can really clutter up a page, especially when more than one template has been substituted. Sometimes I cannot tell where one template ends and the other begins. -- Kjkolb 09:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with not substituting this template. Could you give a few different examples where they are in inappropriate places? --Geniac 14:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I noticed this template among the list of templates that should NOT be substituted, but the decription used recommends substituting. I trust someone will decide and fix it. -- Belegûr 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, although not before time! I created a subpage for documentation per current practice (WP:DOC), and changed it to say NOT to subst this one. --Darkwind (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitution 

message: What qualifies as 'repeatedly blocked'?  Twice?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't usually apply it until 4 or 5 but I could see fewer if the breaches were especially egregious and there were no positive edits in the user's contribution history.  Rossami (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many blocks qualify? 

message: Users and IPs are allowed to remove warnings from their talkpages, but are they allowed to remove a repeat vandal template from their talkpage? I haven't seen this issue brought up anywhere. It would defeat the purpose of this template if an IP removed this from their talkpage. Of course, there would be exceptions, like if a helpful contributor "inherited" the IP of a vandal, but in general, shouldn't the removal of this banner from a IP's talkpage be disallowed (is that even a word? :])? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal from talk page by the "owner" of the page in question 

message: This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected request involving this template 

message: 
Can you add category Category:Repeatedly abused IP addresses from editing to this template? blastertalk! see 10:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: change to  Fazbear7891 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: This is the only standard top-of-talkpage message box I see that is left-positioned rather than centered on the screen. As a result, it looks like a mistake when used in a set of such message-boxes.
It is currently hard-coded as a table for layout. Should it instead use  to get standard talkpage-messagebox layout? DMacks (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be centered?