Template talk:Test/Archives/2005/11

message: Will an admin please make this change, which is intended to be more friendly to newcomers:
Thanks for experimenting with the Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in articles will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing here. Thanks.
Removed rather than deleted, so it can cover non-deletion of article situations. Getting in the thanks and please in early, since those words tend to cause positive reactions. Jamesday 18:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  If anyone objects, I'm watching this page.  -- Pakaran 18:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Jamesday 20:52, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: IMHO, "since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly" should probably be changed to "since testing in articles will be reverted quickly".  The basic reason is just that the former conveys a more uncertain feeling about our reversion policy, and may give a potential vandal some measure of confidence that they can do as they please.  Also, the inclusion of normally may be instruction creep of a sort.  →Iñgōlemo← talk 06:33, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
:I concur.  I was bold and changed it. - Omegatron 15:51, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
More nits: reverted or removed should be changed to removed.  There is no need whatsoever for the longer phraseology: it just bogs the writing down and reduces the concision of the message.  →Iñgōlemo← talk 19:00, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
:Hmmm, that's why I came to this talk page, because I thought "removed" should be replaced with "reverted". The only context in which "removed" makes sense is if the person adds something. Much of the time, however, people are testing by changing something or deleting something. In these contexts, "removed" makes no sense, while "reverted" always makes sense. - Madd4Max 2 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
:Can we put the wording back to "reverted"? "Reverted" always makes sense, while "removed" makes sense only in specific cases. Madd4Max 21:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I add my vote of support for this? "Removed" doesn't make sense for 3/4 of the vandals I use  for. I'm being bold and changing the template, since this was brought up nine days ago and no-one's mentioned it. — Asbestos | Talk 10:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess I'm not changing the template — I hadn't noticed that it was protected. I strongly agree with changing it to "reverted", however. — Asbestos | Talk 10:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Does anyone watch this page? — Asbestos | Talk 18:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's on my watchlist these days. Bill 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So... does anyone have any opinion on changing the wording back to "reverted"? I'd be bold and change it myself, but I can't, so I have to keep asking here at the Talk page. — Asbestos | Talk 16:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: I've added test0, since no other template seemed to fit this category of user (a registered user making controversial edits or deletions). --brian0918™ 16:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Test0

message: Can we add the header Test warn 1 to make the test distinguishable from other text on the discussion page, as well as a count for easy reference of the last  used. I have added to the templates , , & , but this one is protected.  Thanks ∞Who?¿? 04:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Header caused problems with editing. I'm trying a hard line and bold text for seperation. Example:
----Test warn 1
∞Who?¿? 06:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Not if it is the templates were used prior to that day. Then it would be jumbled with the rest.  ∞Who?¿? 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header 

message: I noticed that this template has recently been altered by Dan100. Although I can see the advantages of both Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers!, and by no means have any objection to the template pointing one way or the other, I do feel that the way this template has been re-worded seems a bit harsh, and could be interpreted as biting the newbies. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 15:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree.  I think that the "please" and "thanks" are an important part of this template.  We want to assume good faith with this template.  If no-one objects I'll minimally make the template more polite tomorrow.  JYolkowski // talk 00:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, there's no evidence that vandals continue vandalizing just because they don't notice the warnings. Indeed, the big orange "new messages" notice is very difficult to miss. Simple text is best. — Dan | Talk 03:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent update 

message: I think the word reverted is Wikipedia jargon, and that a newcomer is apt to find it confusing.  I prefer the older term "removed" (which doesn't necessarily mean deleted).  moink 20:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "removed or reverted", although I'd be fine with simply "removed".  "Reverted" doesn't work after you've deleting a test page.  JYolkowski // talk 22:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "Reverted" isn't remotely Wikipedia jargon. "I've reverted your changes" simply means I've put them back to the way they were before. That's pretty standard and easily-understood English. I don't mind having "removed" in there, but strongly disliked it being only "removed", as this doesn't make sense when a vandal deletes information, which is quite a common form of vandalism. "Reverted" is an all-encompassing term which takes into account any changes that the vandal might have made. — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 20:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Asbestos, except that I don't think 'removed' is necessary at all. The OED defines 'revert' as "to return to a former condition"; I think it will be fairly clear to a vandal that the page has been returned to the condition in which it was before he vandalized it. — Dan | Talk 21:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the problem is that "reverted" is also wiki jargon that has a specific meaning that doesn't include everything in the english definition.  How about "undone"?  JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but what is that specific meaning? To revert an edit is to return the page to the former condition. Does it mean anything besides that? — Dan | Talk 03:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is also used when someone creates a test page.  After the page has been deleted, "reverted" doesn't quite describe what has been done.  JYolkowski // talk 21:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reverted" 

message: #Template:Vw
#Template:Vw2
#Template:Vw2a
#Template:Vw3
#Template:Vw4
#Template:Vw5	
#Template:Vw-n
#Template:Vw2-n
#Template:Vw2a-n
#Template:Vw3-n
#Template:Vw4-n
:--Cool Cat Talk 09:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Signing is a pain, well not anymore!

message: For shared IPs, I think it might be a good idea to have an explanatory message to ensure that others using the IP don't get bitten. This could be an additional template to add at the top of the user talk page. I made a draft at Template talk:Test2. The idea is that this would be an extra template to add the top of a user talk page when adding the usual messages, ensuring that users sharing the IP with a vandal don't feel the messages are necessarily addressed to them. Rd232 21:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shared IPs / not biting newbies 

message: After reading Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Template_behavior_changes:_Default_and_arg_transclusion, I was wondering if it would be possible to have the -n templates combined into this, so that if a parameter was given, "This message is concerning the article (whatever)" would go in, but if it wasn't, the leading message wouln't either. Alphax τεχ 18:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've worked it out... At the start of each template, have something like:

where  contains:
This is regarding the article .
That way,  and the like are redundant and can be redirected. Alphax τεχ 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hrm, see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Alphax τεχ 09:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was mostly concerned with "test" being an unhelpful name for some of these messages. We could be more ambitious and bring in some of the related templates like blanking and spam - to become warn-blanking and warn-stop. If we stuck rigorously to always using a level 2 warning (test2 etc) we wouldn't need the blanking and spam series at all. I'm not saying we should get rid of them, if others are happy with them and used to them, I just like a logic structure, and these additional aliases would make it easier to learn/remember what to use when. Rd232 talk 15:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting rid of the named templates? 

message: Good (if it works). While we're at it, how about rationalising the naming a bit. We have a clear hierarchy of severity of disruption which it would be helpful to clarify [old template name in brackets where not obvious]:
# Testing: test | selftest 
# Messing about: warn-nonsense [test2] | warn-removal [test2a] | warn-attack 
# Stop: warn-stop [test3]
# Final warning: warn-final [test4]
# Temporarily blocked: vandal-tempblock [test5]
# Blocked: vandal-longblock [test6]
(Warn-attack is to be a new one relating to not using Wikipedia to attack people.) I think this naming approach makes clearer how the templates are to be used. Thoughts? Rd232 talk 10:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Alphax τεχ 09:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was mostly concerned with "test" being an unhelpful name for some of these messages. We could be more ambitious and bring in some of the related templates like blanking and spam - to become warn-blanking and warn-stop. If we stuck rigorously to always using a level 2 warning (test2 etc) we wouldn't need the blanking and spam series at all. I'm not saying we should get rid of them, if others are happy with them and used to them, I just like a logic structure, and these additional aliases would make it easier to learn/remember what to use when. Rd232 talk 15:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationalise naming

message: Right now, unless there's something I don't know about (always a possibility!!), if we Test4 someone, it's just an empty threat unless it happens to catch the eye of an administrator? Or is there a page somewhere to which Test4 passes the parameter "UserName" putting them on an automatic watchlist? Bill 18:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing automatic, but you can report incidents at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; some admins watch this page (for instance, I do), and if a user is continuing vandalism after warnings then I would expect this to get an admin's attention soonest.  Alternatively, report it at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.  --RobertG ♬ talk 14:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't there then usefully be something automatic that would pass UserName to one of those pages or a separate page? Once BadUser has gone thru Test1-4, in order to be believable, Test4 should be acted on; and right now it's very haphazard. Bill 15:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Passing parameters back to a watchlist, automatically

message: Hi there, I'm fairly new, so, if this has been suggested, and summarily dismissed before, excuse me ;]
The current templates, imo, are worded wonderfully, but, once several are on a page, or an inexperienced editor (such as myself) adds one in the middle of the talk page, they end up looking hideous. I would like to suggest formatting like the following (remember, I am merely suggesting formatting, not the content of the header. I just threw what I thought was appropriate in there.)
 
OR, 
 
I've noticed the tendancy to comment on the content of the blocks in bold. I'm not suggesting what should be in those, I only put text in there for preview purposes. Please don't judge this idea based on the big bold text, as I'm sure you folks will argue that one out at some other time, if this idea is accepted ;]. Anyhow, imo, I think a friendly reminder that draws the users attention, is better than one that, is improperly inserted (or inserted in a hurry). My suggestion, again, imo, would help alleviate this ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 08:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I remain adamant that boxes on any of the test templates should be avoided. They're irritating and unnecessary, and many talk pages are already cluttered with them already. Simple text is best. — Dan | Talk 02:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, not everyone has the same opinions about what looks good, cluttered, etc. That's why I gave the secondary option, of simply using a heading. IMO, either of the two would look much better, however, everyone knows the saying about opinions, so I figured I'd ask here ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 04:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I still think there's something to be said for the approach I drafted here, of a very prominent, very generic box to put at the top of a problem anon user talk page - especially if it's not already tagged SharedIP. The trouble with the existing templates is that they look like personal messages, which may actually give vandals a sense of satisfaction - like pissing off the cops kind of thing. A generic message at the top of the page, as well as a message specific to the current incident (highlighted using headers) is perhaps more likely to lead to vandals stopping, if it's clearer that what they're doing is totally unoriginal. Rd232 talk 08:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that's a good idea, about making the message more generic, as it progresses, I think, tho, that the first message should appear personal, for those that mistakenly vandalised a page.... --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 21:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Cleaner-looking alternates? 

message: I've come across a couple of vandals tonight that none of the templates really fitted adequately. One is where a user keeps coming back under a new IP to repeat the same vandalism ( 1 guy has been coming back for weeks to replace pictures of Pope Benedict XVI with science fiction characters with edit summaries saying they look alike — the joke is running pretty thin at this stage when so many users have to spend their time taking the 'joke' out over and over — ;  another comes back regularly to replace user pages with pictures of penises, etc.) Putting a high test warning on sometimes causes problems because other users who aren't aware of that person's record see you starting at a high test and think you are being unfair. To stop that one ends up retyping on every IP they use the same 'you have been warned on other IPs . . . '. I've created a MultipleIPs template which warns people to stop and includes a line explaining that they have been warned elsewhere to stop before. It should cut out confusion over why a high test was the first one used on a particular page. 
Another problem which seems to have cropped up a couple of times tonight is where people post obscenities (pictures of penises on people's pages, though that hasn't happened for a while, or tonight's user who thought it fun to replace article titles with 'FUCK' and 'WANKER'. I added a specific template called obscene to inform them specifically that adding in obscenities into articles causes offence, is seen as vandalism, and may lead to a block if they don't stop. Realising the specific reason why that edit is a problem might discourage some from doing it, while the threat to block might stop others, so it is a two-pronged approach. Hopefully whenever they are necessary these two templates will be useful and reduce the time needed by users dealing with vandalism to manually add in explanations to the main warnings every time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two additional templates

message: I have added HTML comments to the text of the more common test tempaltees, and i will get the others shortly. These have been added as per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Subst, to identify the precise warning tempalte that has been used even after the template has been subst'd or auto-subst'd. DES (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML comments