Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 4

message: I noticed that the template includes .  This is a mistake.   claims that you can pass the page name as a parameter.  However,  doesn't support that. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug in template page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page change and merge 

message: If you look at the name of , 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)
thread_title:  Template numbering problems 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it does, yeah. --Brad Beattie (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Khukri  (talk . contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:TT]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Excellent work. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ooooh 

message: 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 Are they considered out of date, and we should all switch to the new ones, or are they still considered OK?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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hmm... please tell me we won't phase out the  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)
replies: text:  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 ; the levels designate the severity of the warning, not a required order. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 06:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  template is useful. Heimstern Läufer 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the old templates considered out of date? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Possibly. I'll try it out. Hersfold (talk|work) 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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  and one is a ? 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is also problematic if users have bots automatically archiving their talk page messages. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That is a good example, but most IP pages are much more complicated that that: a  and  three months ago, a  through  last month, a  and  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)
thread_title:  Question on the formatting of the templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redirect old templates/user message? 

message: 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)
replies: text: bump: -- Avi 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should we place {{tl|pinfo4}} and {{tl|pinfo5}}? 

message: * when I used template uw-joke2 I got subst:#ifeq:|n| |Xiahou 02:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what do we use now then?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sigs should never be included in templates 

message: Decision remove the automatically included signature. I will remove them now. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *Will, is your comment in response to Khukri's comment or mine? Thanks, Accurizer 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Do you wish to have an included signature?

message: I could be completely blind and/or stupid, but are templates like  and  not included on here?  Is that for a reason?  -- Merope 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing it either. The description for the  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.,  and  or something similar. Heimstern Läufer 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Do not remove deletion notices? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Whats a nofollow tag? --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Sounds like a good idea to me. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: Short n simaple says it best in my opinion. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam warnings 

message: Having the

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:
 ~~~~
becomes
#  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Whitspace in new templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anonymous user vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes param needed for some templates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fair use image warnings 

message: What is the equivalent of the old ?  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: My advice is to be bold and remove the header yourself! :) --WikiSlasher 07:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried it.  It seems that headers inside #if:'s don't work.  I don't understand why.  I even put some empty lines on either side of the header.  That did not help. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing really but you complained about a few times so I thought I'd just say "go ahead". --WikiSlasher 07:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I found Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview and currently with  Khukri's plan is to "keep & modify" it. I assume when all the single issue templates have been sorted they'll be added to the page. --WikiSlasher 08:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk in article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protection status of these new templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page delete 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll try and look at it today. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 08:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Links to Template:TestTemplates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK I've removed the link to  from the three above on the table, if an admin could delete the redirects ,  &  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)
thread_title:  Problem templates 

message: Are  through  now deprecated? They've been replaced on WP:UTM by  to  and . Should the verror templates be converted to redirects? --Muchness 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure whether any of the old templates are considered deprecated. I'm sure there's a large number of people who still use  and all its variations, and are unaware of the switch. Of course, a redirect would allow them to continue to type , but get the new version. Λυδαcιτγ 05:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've used blatantvandal many times, but NEVER 4im's. You can sometimes tell when someone is definitely vandalizing, but 4im's limit my and other editors' options the next time the person misbehaves. I don't want to report someone to AIV just because someone else placed a 4im tag. I really don't think there's a place for 4im's, especially since other warnings can serve the same purpose. I really hope the column is removed. Have I expressed my opinion strongly enough? Xiner (talk, email) 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks. :-) And I'm afraid I disagree. I use 4ims rarely, but I do use them, usually if the vandalism includes something bordering on hate speech. I fully support the retention of these templates. Heimstern Läufer 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verror templates

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with your template, but another idea is to re-direct all template talk discussions here. Myself and I think Lucas has all the templates in our watchlists but I don't know of many others. We don't really want to miss anyone posting there, so it's better in my opinion they all come here, where you all may be able to help. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 13:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are many problems which are specific to one template - I don't think we want them cluttering up this space. If you think some centralized discussion would be good, we can put a message to that effect on the top of , which I just put on all the uw template talk pages. Λυδαcιτγ 09:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage guidelines 

message: 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. GracenotesT § 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for your last concern, I think it can be considered making "shortcuts" to the templates later on (for example uw-t1, uw-v1, ...). If we keep the uw there will be no risk the templates be mistaken for something else. What do you think? -- lucasbfr talk 08:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The merger of the whole project has already been broached but we will wait until after the single issue templates have been done. The main reason being that it's easier to keep development discussions together over there and not getting in the way of new users here wanting information on how templates work or operational discussions. The overview over in WP:UW is at the moment defunct and was copied over to the project page here when we went live. The overview page will be re-used when we start for single issue templates harmonisation. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure

message: I know of a user that I think was telling me that someone posted their private information somewhere on Wikipedia.  I told them about , but didn't know what the replacement was.  Can you provide that? Will (Talk - contribs) 08:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinfo stays the same for the moment it will come under single issue templates. There is no varying level for this warning, it simple don't do it, the same as the legal threat warning. It will change in the next phase. Khukri 09:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It will become a single issue template something along the lines of  with any extra text on the block being added as part of the parsered thingumy. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 10:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What replaced {{tl|pinfo4}}? 

message: Stop me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember that users that are blocked indefinitely are to be tagged with  and their talk page to be deleted after a reasonable amount of time. Could an admin confirm this and tell whether it is a good idea to include either the template or the associated category inside the  template? -- lucasbfr talk 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indef block and {{tl|temporary userpage}}? 

message: OK it seems like with only a few minor niggles left the templates are pretty much a go'er. So they're yours to do as you see fit, I'm going back into my little gnome cave back over at WP:UW to start looking at the single issue templates. If anyone comes in saying where is my such and such warning either tell them it's been nuked or to come and leave a message over there about they want a single issue template. Now you all know the plan I hope more of you will be involved with the single issue templates, so we can get the right look and feel across the board. Once this is finished, WP:UW will get wrapped up and I (or someone else) will merge the project and re-structure the project page here. I'll be keeping an eye out, but I'm not going to try and respond to every post as I have been trying to do for the last week. I'm going to have a wee break from it all but I'll be back soon. Traa Khukri  (talk . contribs) 10:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My work here is done. 

message: How come the option of  is no longer presented to the user? The current ones do not indicate this possibility. New users are not going to figure it out, IMO. Xiner (talk, email) 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now,  is preferred. But I'd like to simplify it to what you say; see above. Λυδαcιτγ 05:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What does the subst=subst: at the end of the template do? --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Λυδαcιτγ 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage instructions 

message: Under this new system of warnings, what would be a good replacement for the Notenglish0 warning message? I recently ran into a user had been creating articles in Spanish, and I was suprised that I had to go to the old warning template page to find a message that covered the issue I was going to explain to the person. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 08:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Notenglish0]]? 

message: What replaces ?  Will there be a replacement? Will (Talk - contribs) 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Khukri -  08:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about {{tl|test-self}}? 

message: I think names like  are too long.  Can we get shorter versions like ? Will (Talk - contribs) 09:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer uw-v1 personally. VegaDark 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also prefer uw-v1. I think the shorter ones are created as redirects though, so we could easily have both. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of the new templates have names that are too long 

message: What are we supposed to use for people adding opinion to articles?  Like "The football team has yet to play him, but when they do he will be a pro bowler" It isn't vandalism so we shouldn't use that warning, it is unsourced but there is no way something like that could be sourced, so using the unsourced warning seems innapropriate. VegaDark 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Talk in article? Will (Talk - contribs) 09:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think  is sufficient for the example VegaDark gave. We might need a sequence of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball/opinion (but not quite as harsh as the NPOV templates). Of course we don't want to clutter up the page with lots of different templates though. --WikiSlasher 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I use  several times per day; the equivalent in the new templates is  -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a warning for adding opinion to articles

message: I might get around to updating this template sometime or if not someone else can do it if they like. --WikiSlasher 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is an example of a single-issue template, which forms the next phase of WP:UW, so you are probably better off checking over there. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Vandal tags]]

message: I feel that a vandalism template specifically designed for those people who use vulgar language should be designed. The levels could be determined based on the number of vulgar words used in the edit. Anyone agree/disagree? --Catalyst2007 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. Λυδαcιτγ 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's very rare to see unwarranted use of foul language that isn't in the context of vandalism, POV or similar. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Dalip Singh/Archive 1. -- The Hybrid 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't if you meant this as a counterexample or agreement with Ollie, but it's a good example of why this template would be unnecessary. The unwarranted use of foul language by Son of Kong and Correctus was personal attacks. Meanwhile, you said "stop the crap" four times, with good reason - which presumably would earn you some kind of warning under this vulgar language system. Λυδαcιτγ 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, technically crap is just a name ;), but yeah, I was using it to agree with Oliver. It is only disruptive when it is being used in conjunction with other violations. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vulgar Language Vandalism Template?

message: refers to the wrong replacement.  You make the replacement look like a template.  However, there is no template.  The link points to the new list.  Some users like having a template for the list so they can add it to their user page. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it works (the magic of noinclude tags). Try putting  on your userpage. Λυδαcιτγ 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You fixed the red link.  But that does not change how the server will evaluate .  Unless you either put that colon (:) in front of the template name or create , it still won't expand.  You will see "Template:WP:UTM" instead.  Please try it for yourself.  You must get the user to add that colon. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement for template is incorrect 

message: I thought I might make our lives a little easier by adding some redirects to the new vandalism templates (I'm probably lazy, but I found it long to type out uw-vandalism1). I've made redirects at , ,  and . Thought I'd report it here in case anyone objects or I'm breaking some convention I'm unaware of, and, assuming not, so others can use these shortcuts if they want. Heimstern Läufer 01:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I was thinking of earlier - good thing you did, I wasn't looking forward to typing out vandalism in full every time I wanted to use it. --WikiSlasher 06:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: Excuse the humble opinion of an editor but I don't think the recent changes are productive. The previous version gave more information about which templates to use and why, and now it is harder to figure out which templates to use without clicking on each one to find out what it says. I frequently use this page as a reference when warning vandals and the like and these recent changes will make it harder to figure out which templates are which. Just letting you know. Ekantik talk 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to the older revision just before the change. --WikiSlasher 06:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: Mmm I see these 2 series are now in the list. Anyone willing to redo them to comply with the grid and the layout? -- lucasbfr talk 09:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed their mis-alignment.  The only remaining issue is that  and  are in the level4im column - they are block messages rather than the only warning.  --Sigma 7 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|drmafd}} and {{tl|drmspeedy}} 

message: I feel the new alphabetized list (which puts vandalize and test at the bottom, and copyright at the top) is a bit more confusing than before. maybe we can make 2 alphabetized tables (one with the most used: test, vandalize, delete, and maybe 2 more and one table with the rest)? -- lucasbfr talk 10:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabet vs usage? 

message: Should  put the page in :Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages the way that  does? --Ed (Edgar181) 13:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we seem to both have had the same idea I am going to do it. -- lucasbfr talk 14:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed your same question above.  I looked into it a bit more, and I'm certain that it's worth making the change.  I see you've already done it, so thanks for taking care of it. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  uw-block3 

message: Is there a template for telling users or IPs that it's not a good idea to leave their email addresses on a talk page, because Wikipedia is so often scraped, etc.? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can create a single issue template if you feel this is necessary. Keep an eye on WP:UW over the coming weeks. Khukri -  12:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks — this does come up on a fairly regular basis. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of it being a problem before but that's not to say it isn't. Once we get on a roll with the new templates, make a wording suggestion over there, and I think we can create a one off template warning about the posting of any personal details, not just e-mail. In saying that, there is a bell ringing in the back of my mind that I've seen something similar to this, that may be reworded. I'll have a look. Khukri -  16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for users or IPs listing their email addresses in talk? 

message: I am a bit puzzled by . How can blanking a page be that big to deserve an immediate sanction? -- lucasbfr talk 13:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe very bad faith troll (gnaa-type trolling) blankings of controversial wiki processes, such as AFDs or RFAs? For example, Parcoman was indefinitely blocked for this, except I think that it was the edit summary that did that ;] (side note: this user certainly has taste in his unblock requests). , , and  used to cover this, and they have not had any sort of substitute thus far; I will create them the next time I have access to a computer (6 hours, about). I can't think of a circumstance where blanking alone would deserve a 4im, though. GracenotesT § 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said above I'm not overly keen on the IM warnings as I feel level 4 can suffice. But I do think there is a place for this type of warning, be it merged with level4 or as it is now on it's own. Something like this shouldn't be used lightly, the issuing editor must seriously think about WP:AGF & WP:BITE before issuing this warning, it may be someone on a shared IP making a blanking accident. I personally wouldn't use this unless it was a vandal with a recognised MO, coming back after a ban and keeps blanking the Jesus article for example. I'm concerned there are a number of recent change patrollers who are using this warning or the other IM warnings as a first time warning. Vandalism is vandalism regardless whether someone just writes poo on an article or something even more sexually explicit. If we are going to immediately dish out the nuke level warnings everytime for vandalism then we might as well write off the above two guidelines and the hope of converting anyone from malicious editing to constructive editing. Khukri -  15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen many instances of inappropriate 4im use, but I'll trust you that you have. One time I gave it to someone when he or she put approximately 50 instances of a large image of Hitler, one after another, in that day's featured article (to crash browsers and offend people); in general, if the vandal shows knowledge of the system and how to abuse it quite drastically, 4ims should be given. Hmmm.... I think that the uw-vandalism series might be best for blanking and replacing with obviously bad faith content; in a very very very very bad case of blanking and replacing, uw-vandalism4im can be used, and not uw-delete4im. GracenotesT § 18:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In such cases, AzaToth and Dave6, have you ever found that the level-3 warnings say pretty much the same thing, except for the "only warning" reference? It is possible to block after another infraction in such cases. Given that the current 4im's don't mention the "multiple edits" nature of the crime, I think they have the same results, except that other people who see the 4im's may wonder if the warning was too harsh. Xiner (talk, email) 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|uw-delete4im}} too harsh? 

message: Per Khukri's suggestion, I am moving my suggestion regarding a change to this template from the template talk page to here, to try to develop a consensus.  Specifically, I  removed the following language from the warning, "Some of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed as they could be considered to be vandalism."  This change makes the template very similar to the old VW (which I personally really liked).  I like this change for two reasons: (1) it's more consistent with the level 1 assumption of good faith, while still being stronger than test1 (which does not talk about "unhelpful or unconstructive" edits); and (2) it leaves some room for escalation to vandalism2, which can introduce the word vandalism.  As it was, I saw very little reason to use vandalism2, as the message was virtually identical to vandalism1; it made more sense (at least to me) to simply skip to V3.  Any other thoughts?--Kubigula (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You made a good case and I can't really argue against it. The original version does read like the old vw, which I used very often, and so I would like to argue this change, but I can't find a way to yet. :) Xiner (talk, email) 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you decide to argue against it, I just want to be clear that I changed uw-vandalism1 to be slightly softer and more like old .  That being said, please argue away.--Kubigula (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to {{tl|uw-vandalism1}}

message: the current setup of 3rr isn't logical, I propose change it to a two level system:
Description	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 4im
3RR        	N/A    	       	N/A    	       	?
Where the first one (level 2) is given after two reverts, and the second is given after three reverts, so the logic for level 4 is kept, that it's last warning, and that level 22 is caution about the 3rr rule. →AzaToth 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just a single issue template? The level 4 one is a bit like 'Go stand in a corner, and wait to see if you will be punished'. Once someone has a single issue for 3rr (potentially after two reverts) then if they're going to get another message, it's either a post asking them to explain their actions  and why they reverted again after receiving the message, or it's the block with the reason typed in. Khukri -  11:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent, I'll change the new overview page to reflect this. If you don't mind one little thing, could you change the will be blocked to maybe blocked as 3rr has some leeway in it for the issuing editor and blocking admin? Khukri -  18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  change of 3rr 

message: I'm so glad to see all the different template categories we have for warnings. I'm wondering, though, what template(s) should we use for [Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism|"silly" vandalism] such as nonsense and profanity. Just uw-vandlism? Gutworth 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I use uw-test1 (or uw-joke1) if it's relatively inoffensive silliness and if they haven't been doing it a while (and no-one else warned them yet).  If it's unnecessary profanity or they have been doing it a while, I go with uw-vandalism1.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What template for "silly" vandalism 

message: I see that  has made it's way onto the page. I don't really understand why - it's not really for communication with other users, is it? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just a placeholder for further single level warning templates. →AzaToth 14:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aahh, I see. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Void 

message: Please semi-protect the new warning templates, vandalism like this is harmful. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: Is there any templates to be used for warning people trying to own a page? →AzaToth 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to find a template, but I couldn't. Squirepants101 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've created a new template for this. See Template:Uw-own1. Tell me what you think of it. Squirepants101 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. It don't see it that often but when I did I had to type it out manually. --WikiSlasher 01:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, WP:OWN violations are usually by experienced users not newbies, so using a template will rarely be appropriate (especially one that says "welcome to Wikipedia")... WJBscribe 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Otherwise we might have to give the template-poster this template. GracenotesT § 06:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. What a beautiful paradox that creates! WJBscribe 06:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OWN]] 

message: How come in the table, it doesn't say for some warnings, it says N/A. Shouldn't it say "use [warning type]4 ? --TeckWizParlateContribs@ 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope because some warnings aren't blockable like agf, etc. Khukri -  23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not AGF is not as clear cut as someone putting unsourced material on here or vandalism for instance. The realms and definition of AGF are not very obvious, it's an attitude not a quantifiable characteristic. It's not a very clear cut warning and ambiguous at best, mainly because AGF depends on the viewers standpoint and bias, and that they could be misinterpreting what another editor is trying to say. Something like this usually ends up one of three ways, if it's over an article one side usually gets pinged for 3rr, it can get resolved by one party being more patient and ignoring the rantings and talking through the arguments and not repsonding. Most importantly if there was no concensus achieved, ask any friendly admin, or as a last resort, in my opinion, go to WP:DR. Khukri -  09:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Use ??? 4" 

message: Can warnings ,  and  still be used on talk pages? The reason I'm asking this is because on the page, the warnings have been replaced by . Squirepants101 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep an eye on the talk page things change quick round here ;) Read here. Any questions give me a shout. Khukri -  23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why are those templates still there? Shouldn't they be deleted (or redirected) along with templates such as  and ? Squirepants101 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All in good time, let's not rush too quickly, see my response in the thread below. Cheers Khukri -  08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three-revert rule templates? 

message: What is going to happen to the old warning templates? We've already gotten one on MfD, and it would be nice to know what's intended before a flood come in. -Amark moo! 05:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the old warning templates better than these ones... Most of them, anyways. -- Ned Scott 08:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After having my brain installed I can see that the new ones are a bit better.. I'm still not fond of the little blue icon on every template.. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been a bit lax over the weekend and haven't done much on it, but I'm starting to list all of the warnings from the warnings category, here, and I'm putting what in my opinion should be redirected where, de-categorised or mfd'ed. Once it's finished I'll put it out to the universe where it can be torn to shreds as the project sees fit ;). Cheers Khukri -  08:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question... 

message: Wouldn't it be best to remove the article parameter from the  series of template.  I think it would be best to try and keep the actual article in which the edits occurred on the "down low" (so to speak). 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. If it's anything really bad, an admin can delete the info from the page history. Regardless, it's a good idea to let the user know what article they're being reprimanded for defaming in. Λυδαcιτγ 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The above comment was by User:John Reaves, by the way. Λυδαcιτγ 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a feature restricted to a small handful of admins, unless you're talking about deleting the whole article. See WP:OVERSIGHT. — Feezo (Talk) 02:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for the feedback. John Reaves (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defamation templates 

message: (Moved down from above where lost in past discussions WJBscribe 01:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what may seem a strange reversal, these templates are particularly useful for less-experienced junior wikipedians who want to communicate with their over-bearing seniors, but have difficulty doing so in ways that seem civil.  I applaud their use in that context, i.e. when the junior user might have difficulty being polite. Sdsds 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|uw-own2}} and {{tl|uw-own3}} ?

message: *  to begin discussing WP:U issues directly with a user.
*  to notify a user of a WP:RFC/NAME about him.
*  to notify the user of an RFC result of "Allow".
The block and block notice already exist for the case of a "Disallow". Ben 01:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username discussion templates 

message: In the heading it says "may be considered vandalism" and in the actual message it says "is vandalism." One or the other should be changed to avoid accidentally delivering too stiff a warning. P0M 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Patrick, can you give me some more information? I'm not sure which header you are referring to? Are you talking about  Regards Khukri -  15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  test 2 heading does not represent test 2 content