Template talk:Test

message: My understanding is that this template now wraps in the behavior of ?  The instructions given don't mention this, which was rather confusing.  Could an example be added?  -- Creidieki 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentation at the top of this page mentions it. The box on the template page contains helpful reminders, rather than actual instructions. —[admin] Pathoschild 05:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example for article name 

message: I think that we should make the "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia" a link to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.  It would be a piped link, of course, so that the first sentence of  would look like, "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia.", and the first sentence of  would look like "Thank you for experimenting with the page Article on Wikipedia."  After that, both versions of the template would look exactly the same.  The reason I think this should be added to the template is so that users who "recieve" this template would be directed to the policy that I'd mentioned, so that they could realize why their "improvements" had been reverted.  That way, we have a better chance of turning vandals into constructive users, not to mention not alienating the ones who were trying to be constructive in the first place.  What do you guys think?  --Luigifan 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This test template is designed for newbie tests.  Very few newbies are disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point.  WP:POINT is directed more at experienced knowlegeable Wikipedians who purposefully disrupt Wikipedia because they are knowledgeable about policies and disagree with them.  Newbie tests are done by those who are not knowledgeable of the policies, or often even that their edits will show up in the encyclopedia.  moink 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worse than you make it seem, actually. By doing this, we imply that is what they are doing. Saying that is definitely biting the newcomers, and possibly a violation of WP:AGF, too. -Amarkov babble 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly often, when  is used the person receiving it is actually just testing. Directing them to the sandbox is often all that is needed to prevent them unintentionally disrupting articles. Accusing them of POINTing is not going to help the situation. --ais523 10:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another link

message: This wording has always bothered me a bit. It seems to legitimize testing. It reminds me of an old usenet response to test posts - "nope, still didn't appear in alt.test". I think it should say, instead of "your test worked", something like "your edit appeared in the encyclopaedia and has been reverted...". Does anyone know what I mean? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wording is supposed to be like reverse psychology.  --Luigifan 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It might not have appeared for long and, properly, it did not appear in the "encyclopedia", could have been reverted instantly. —Centrx→talk • 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Your test worked

message: Please add simple:Template:Test and fr:Modèle:Test 1. --Rory096 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Done, thanks. Kusma (討論) 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki links

message: Often when newpage patrolling, I encounter users who are clearly experimenting with Wikipedia by creating a new page, sometimes as vandalism or perhaps just without knowing much about what we do, i.e. creating a page about themselves. I was wondering whether a set of templates to add to those user pages would be useful, for example:
:Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for experimenting with creating a new page, but please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 
Also, often people post articles about non-notable people, i.e. themselves, their friends, etc. Perhaps something like this might be appropriate:
:Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for experimenting with creating a new page, however, some of the subjects you have written about may not correspond to our notability guidelines. Please take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
Then there could perhaps be a similarly graded system for repeats, etc. Does anybody else have an opinion about this? Bob talk 19:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  series? -Amarkov blahedits 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for users testing with creating newpages 

message: Here is my idea of a revised version of the template:
:Welcome to Wikipedia. While this may not have been your intent, your recent edits have been unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, or if you simply want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you need any assistance, please contact the one who left you this message.
I think this version is better, because it has more universal use. It could be used more appropriately in cases when a user makes an unconstructive edit that is not necessarily a "test".--Azer Red Si? 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revised version 

message: "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia"
WP:VAND says that "if you are not sure that an edit is vandalism, always start with ." What if the user was not experimenting, but rather was making a good faith edit, and another user thought it was a test, and reverted it? The reverter would just put this template on the talk page. It might intimidate the user, deterring him from further editing. I think this template should be used as a warning, nothing else. Many users "warn" good-faith newbies without thinking of the consequences. What they need to do is manually type a reason for reverting, and what that user could do in the future. Also, I noticed that they usually leave an edit summary of "test1" or "test2" or "warning user with VandalProof". These may further intimidate a good-faith newbie user. Users need to think before they warn. --75.26.9.99 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiment 

message: Why do you get mad at that wiki 
isaiahs01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not mad. I mostly like Wikipedia, I just don't like how people "warn" others. --71.138.128.14 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: They did something wrong, we shouldn't be thanking them for it. -Amarkov blahedits 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We want to encourage them to edit Wikipedia, so even if they're a little misguided in how they do that, we still appreciate that.  JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are we thanking them for experimenting? 

message: I'm torn as to whether or not I think it's a good idea for this template to link to Help:Revert. Since it's a a good faith warning, keeping it wouldn't hurt in cases where the edit in question was indeed good faith, and would equip those users to revert vandalism in the future. But do they really need to know exactly what a revert is now just to know that their test has been removed? If they stick around, they'll learn the tricks of the trade as they become a more experienced editor, anyway.
The template is also given to users who turn out to be vandals. In these cases, might WP:BEANS apply? I've seen vandalism marked with an edit summary claiming to be reverting vandalism once or twice, so it might be a bad idea to teach possible vandals about that nifty little trick. Then again, such deception is pretty rare, and they'll always figure out how to revert (or claim to be reverting) eventually, too. Like I said, I'm not sure if it's a good idea or a bad idea to keep that wikilink, so I thought I'd just mention it here in case someone else had a stronger argument than I do. --Icarus (Hi!) 08:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to revert help page 

message: I'm confused as to why we need two different vandalism/experimenting templates. Why did we change from the old one? And why don't we just have the old one redirect to the new one? Could someone explain please?  GofG |||  Contribs 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:UW and this strawpoll regarding redirects. --Geniac 12:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did we change? 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — mrholybrain's talk 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Test}} 

message: 
Can you please redirect this page to  as part of the Wikiproject User Warnings and they are basicaly the same anyway, thank you. Af648 10:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a poll about this, and there was no consensus for the redirection there; therefore, I'm removing the , unless you know of some reason why the poll's results don't apply. --ais523 10:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because polling is evil? – Gurch 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Please, add iwiki to :ru:Шаблон:Тест.--193.124.238.46 11:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ru iwiki 

message: I just came across these warnings and I can't figure out when I should use them. The first one implies that the editor somehow guessed that the edit was a "test". But how do we define what a "test" is? Replacing a page with "qze eqzrf eqrez ez" could be considered a test but why would we bother finding out if the user was "testing" or just vandalizing. I'd say in all cases, a   is appropriate while a  warning is just guess work. If a user purposely damage a page as a "test", it's still vandalism unless he/she undo the changes. The  warning and more are even less useful since they are assuming bad faith - in other words they are assuming vandalism in which case a  and more would be more helpful (in particular for new changes patrollers). So I'm just wondering what was the rational for creating these templates? What purpose do they fullfil that a  wouldn't? Laurent (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You might ask those people who patrol Recent Changes. You are supposed to use , , etc. and wait until the newbie figures out his/her error. It is all part of Assume Good Faith until it is abundantly clear that the newbie is malicious. Then you have justification to act against a known vandal with , etc.. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point of this warning? 

message: Six years on... Based on this, I don't think anyone is using this template anymore. I am tempted to redirect it to ; are there any objections? — This, that and the other (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Still prefer this one and use it. No reason to redirect it. Garion96 (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's in use, I can't argue with that. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect? again