Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archives/2007/01

message: # Eliminates confused users and problems improperly warned people. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support adding "uw-" prefix to all new templates

message: # This new proposal doesn't explain why any change is actually needed. It needs clarification and rewording before I can consider it. - Mgm|(talk) 13:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose (keep as is)

message: Renesis13 changed the icon on the  to the new design,  which looks much better. So could everyone responsible for a template page update their pages to the new version. I'll do all mine and the base template, most probably after my wife has dragged me round the gardeening centre this afternoon. Khukri(talk . contribs) 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you like it!I made this with the intention of making the UW templates look more uniform in appearance, and I may make a stop sign one when I have some time.One reason why I didn't replace this image anywhere besides the  is that I wasn't sure if the samples on the UW sandbox pages are actually indicating that the templates (level 0 and 1) will contain that image.Is that the case? -- Renesis (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Info Icon

message: *Daniel & Ken's look almost finished so I think these can go up for review if you'd like to do that. Misza has just one level to complete. Teck I know you think it's not necessary, but humour me please ;), I've done the defamatories and I think your npa's can be along the same lines for the first two levels.... please........ 
*Misza has moded the  and after Teck's question about the blocks I've created  to explain the parser functions on the additional texts and sig functions.
*I think we can just go ahead with Quarl's uw- proposal. Now if this is the case, it means the redirects will not be needed in the short term. If you all think it would be helpful I therefore suggest we copy all our templates over to their respective individual pages, and this means we can use the page on my sandbox to create a more complete review. Thoughts please? Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets do it, i'm ready to start this. If you look at my contribs, you can see I drop a lot of user warnings on talk pages, and I'm excited to spin the wheels on the end product of the WikiProject. JoeSmack Talk 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this thread at the admin noticeboard, crz has created a new UW template for people who are "biting" newbies.My question is -- what process have we implemented for people to create new templates, and keep the project organized at the same time? Also, I have some time if there is anything I can do. -- Renesis (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of warning comes into the one off type of warning, much like , , etc. These warnings will be covered in the second phase of this project, where we look at everything else on Category:User_warning_templates and bring them together. Depending on if anyone objects in the next 48 hours or so, I think if you want something to do you can help me create all the new individual template pages, cutting and pasting the text in. Question for admins, do we delete the old grouped template pages, or just stuff them in a archive corner somewhere? If the outstanding templates are completed soon, I still see the third week in January as an optimistic date to go live with all these templates. Khukri(talk . contribs) 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I can do that.What is the process for that?Creating Template:Uw-spam0 and pasting the contents from the spam page into it?About the grouped template pages, if they are not historical, I'd think we can delete them. I can do this if you make a list of the ones that are ready to be deleted. -- Renesis (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All taken, only four to finish

message: OK it's already becoming obvious here that we are going to have language differences acorss our templates, I've already seen one that uses both types of English. WP:MOS just states that the language should be either dependant on it's subject matter, or as a final recourse must stay in the language of the initial editor. Just to plagarise (notice no Z) Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages.
What I would like to suggest is that we add to our mandate that all templates are written in X or Y. I think looking at the work that you all do round here that most of you will be above the language issue but I think it would be good to have continuity throughout the project as I can't stand seeing Vandalise on one template and Vandalize on another. So I'll start
*Neutral even though I personally use British English I just want one or the other. Khukri(talk . contribs) 10:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The eternal question

message: Are the civil templates not being considered as part of this project? --Ronz 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had originally forseen amalgamating npa and civil under a global fits all template. Mainly because civil didn't have the full spectrum of warnings and could be incorporated quite easily within.Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The view seems to be that boilerplate is not appropriate for civility reminders. The civility template was recently deleted on TfD.--Docg 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone explain what this means? --Ronz 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a template to remind someone to be civil is, in fact, an act of incivility as well.Especial when they get overused in retaliation during a dispute (like so often happens). ---J.S(T/C/WRE) 23:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil(n) templates?

message: If anyone doesn't want to take the time to write their own message, the one below is the I left at Wikipedia talk:Recent changes patrol. It basically says the important stuff. Feel free to change it:
Though the following isn't effective yet, please read the following:
Wikiproject user warnings has been working to redo all templates. Originally, plans were to slowly insert these, so people would know that the warnings had changed. However, this was thought to be bad, so all of the new templates of the project have a " uw- " in front of them. Another advantage of the prefix was so that the user warning template wouldn't get confused with something else (ie. a POV template for an article page and a POV template for a user talk page of a user who's inserting POV). This means that the old templates will still work as normal. However, these new templates are more organized. Level 0 has been eliminated, and the levels now go from 1-4. In addition, block templates are organized differently. All new templates automatically insert your signature, and all templates are completely lower-cased. An important note is that the new test templates are not blockable, as they are only for tests (i.e. can I really type here?). Things that test was previously used for, like vandalism, now have their own templates. The templates are currently on review until Jan. 22. For the complete list of templates, see Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview. --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spot on. Here's the one I did for sitting on the recent changes page, and just looking out for editors dishing out warnings. Thanks very much. Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Change of Notices Message

message: I just saw that this template was a placeholder. I edited it (even if I still feel it is a bit too long), don't hesitate to review and correct it! -- lucasbfr talk 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|Uw-3rr2}}

message: Nothing major, just a quick log of little changes I've made to the templates - some of these may be based on what I think "reads better", so if you disagree with a change please reply here and/or revert it ^_^
* - "However, unconstructive edits, as you did to Article, are considered to be vandalism." -> "However, unconstructive edits, as you made to Article, are considered to be vandalism."
* - "...including an explanation why you feel the block should be removed." -> "...including an explanation for why you feel the block should be removed."
* - "Thank you for experimenting with, the page Article on Wikipedia." -> "Thank you for experimenting with the page Article on Wikipedia."
* - "It is considered vandalism which under Wikipedia guidelines can lead to blocks being applied." -> "It is considered vandalism which, under Wikipedia guidelines, can lead to blocks being applied."
* - "Please do not introduce some form of vandalism to the userpages of other users." -> "Please do not introduce any form of vandalism to the userpages of other users."
* - "However, we must insist that you assume good faith whilst interacting with other editors, which you did not do here, Article." -> "However, we must insist that you assume good faith whilst interacting with other editors, which you did not on Article."
(Same change made to agf2 and agf3 aswell. I noticed the same format being used on the npa templates too, which I haven't changed - does anyone else agree that my form is more readable, or is it just personal bias?)
* - "However, your recent edits , to Article have been reverted" -> "However, your recent edits to Article have been reverted"
* - "Please do not add defamatory content, as you did to Article, to Wikipedia." -> "Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Article."
* - "Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do seriously here." -> "Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously." 
I will wikignomeify the rest when I get home from work ^_^ ShakingSpirittalk 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor copyediting

message: I put some of these templates on my sandbox to see what they look like when they are actually used. The layout I used is the one recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings#Layout Guidelines. They don't seem to number or bullet as expected. Also, the extra text that can be added doesn't stand out, and thus won't usually be seen by someone experienced glancing through the templates. Comments? -- kenb215 talk 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  breaks lists because the wikiML table syntax contains line breaks. See 'Suggestion' above. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets just put a handbrake on the uw template until the layout guidelines are satisfied. Could someone take this as priority, as we're to put it bluntly a bit buggered, if we can't get this to work. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 08:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This will be a non-issue if we decide not to use icons everywhere, since there will be no need for a table at all. See 'Icons in general' below (or above, depending how it's archived). —{admin} Pathoschild 08:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally like the idea of icons, at least for the first and last levels. The message looks more professional with the information icon in my opinion (and is more friendly IMHO). for levels 2 and 3 I have no opinion (I like it but I don't think they are that useful) -- lucasbfr talk 09:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough to know if it's the icons or something else about the warnings, but the current format does indeed bugger the number and bullet layout. That's not good. --Geniac 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearance when used

message: I finally created a new stop hand icon to match the others.I placed it in the  template, so when we convert all the other templates, they will be using the new icons.The uw-vandalism and uw-block templates are already converted. -- Renesis (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Stop icon

message: I stumbled across this, and looking at your lovely neat table of templates... I'm amazed. This rocks. I've taken the liberty of moving a few commas to make them show up correctly, I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. This is some great work, if a lowly user like myself can say so :-) Rawling 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaand they're under review. My bad. I only used one. I guess I'll just keep watch on this project until it goes mainstream. Rawling 22:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. The main reason for that message is just to let people know that the templates are still in the process of being made by a group. It's no real harm if they are used, we just would like to have them all finished first. -- kenb215 talk 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just... wow

message: As I've said (just above) this project looks like it's going amazingly well. I'm concerned about one set of templates; the User/talk page vandalism set. The templates themselves, uw-tpv1 through 3, refer solely to Userpage vandalism, so they're not appropriate for use on Talk page vandalism. I would have expected uw-tpv templates to be for Talk page vandalism, and there to be another set uw-upv for Userpage vandalism. Rawling 23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the perceived differentiation between the talk page and the user page vandalism on Wikipedia. Talk page commentary seems to be allowed so long as it's not personal attack, uncivil, defamatroy, etc. But a user page is seen to be sacrosanct. However I think you have raised a valid point in this regard in that it's the user page we focus on and as such the warning should be UPV. Thank you for your comments and appreciation above. We are more than likely to be having some major changes in the next week before we go live. But if you wish to join the project please, sign up and make your first project the migration of TPV to UPV warnings and get the old one deleted. They're my templates, so knock yourself out. If you have any further question don't hesitate to get in contact. Khukri(talk . contribs) 00:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've migrated the various tpv templates to upv, I think I've done it properly, and I've updated the table on the overview page. However I'm not going to request deletion of the old templates in case we need some tpv warnings for people breaking talk page guidelines. Rawling 10:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, further to this, I've taken a stab at creating templates for genuine talk page vandalism - namely deleting or editing legitimate posts, as mentioned on the vandalism and talk page guidelines pages. If someone would care to take a look at Template:uw-tpv1, Template:uw-tpv2 and Template:uw-tpv3 and decide whether it's worth adding these to the main summary table, or otherwise just delete them. Rawling 11:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, having thought on it, maybe we should think about the 3rd level warning just being a straight  and make the tpv & upv be non-blockable. Only a suggestion as otherwise it's good and follows what we are trying to set out here. Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've made the templates, so I'll leave the decisions as to which ones to use where up to the guys in charge around here :) Rawling 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh, cancel that. I didn't think we were deciding policy here, just designing some nifty templates. What exactly does this project deciding to make Talk- and User-page vandalism non-blockable mean? I would have thought either practice would be blockable if performed repeatedly despite being warned against it. Rawling 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it, I didn't check before I left the message, the tpv/upv warnings weren't directly blockable anyway. Yes you're right the act itself should be blockable, but by the time we've got to a fourth level warning there's no point in having a specific warning for each of these and we just treat it for what it is. We give them a final warning for vandalism, hence the use  on the table. Khukri(talk . contribs) 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User/talk page vandalism templates

message: Anyone seen  - I could TFD this, but I'm not sure if it is relevant or not. Whats your thought's on this?? --SunStar Nettalk 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that templete has anything to do with this project. That said, I'm new here myself :p Rawling 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would ask on the IRC spam channel if they use this much. I wouldn't worry about TfD'ing it for now. Once we have done this whole project including the single issue warnings completed, if there is a need for it then we'll leave it for a while, try and incorporate it then TfD it with minimum fuss later on. Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the channel: #wikipedia-spam-t. JoeSmack Talk 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Spamonly

message: Saw a new, under-development vandalism template and didn't know if it was apart of the project. . If it is not, we may want to inform that user of this project but I wanted to check here first.--NMajdan•talk 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd be so kind. Our  meets all of their points and concerns and if we're to become the one stop shop for all user warnings then it's better they come through here first. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this apart of the project?

message: Anyone else reckon we can merge the biog and defamatory warnings?? Khukri(talk . contribs) 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the relationship in them. How would you merge them? --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding negative information to a biog article is usually defamatory. But I would word it something along the lines of Please do not add unsourced negative comments or defamatory remarks to wikipedia, as you did to blah blah blah to cover both warnings. Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biog & Defamatory

message: I think we should start looking at a merge of this project in the near future with the above, we already have our overview page which in part will cover WP:TT, and will be completed by the single level templates in the near future. I'm also concerned that this project is titled user warnings, where as 'UTM - User template messages' covers everything, is better titled and conveys a more neutral standpoint. After Sebastien's points above about assume good faith and our perceived profile, I think it would be a good opportunity to move this project into a more neutral sounding territory. Also in my mind I see it as good time to finish this project and hand it over to the community. This is a work in progress but there has to come a time when it is no longer a project, and those who have worked on it to bring it to a live status and have set the standard, let go and take over a more janitorial role in it's up keep. I propose therefor that once the two phases (multi & single level warning) have gone live, that we wrap the work up here and transfer it, the instructions and guidelines over to WP:UTM or another location. I would be interested in you thoughts on this. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 13:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should point out that Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace has more than just warnings so the new warnings overview page won't replace all of it. But yeah merging is probably a good idea. --WikiSlasher 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:TT]] & [[WP:UTM]]

message: I took the liberty to renumber one proposed template in the redirect-to list, from "notcensored2" to "notcensored1". Reasons: (a) the previous level is "notcensored0", and normally 1 follows 0; (b) template  exists and is different in both content and purpose (meant for posting on article talk pages). If for any reason this change is unacceptable, please let's discuss what to do instead. I had created "notcensored2" before discovering this project, and it is already transcluded on numerous talk pages, so replacing its content will require re-editing all those pages. If I'd known you intended to use that name, I would have chosen a different one. -- Ben 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that! As you can see, we decided to rename all our templates by adding "uw-" at the start, to prevent such collisions. I don't think we will make the redirections from the old system to the new one in a near future (I might be wrong I am not sure) -- lucasbfr talk 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: notcensored2 --> notcensored1

message: I'll try to fix the bullet/numbering thing -- how was it supposed to work? I don't see any # or * in the templates.Did I remove them? -- Renesis (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: erm ........ mmmmmmmmm ........ that'd might be me then. I think I forgot them amongst everything else I did with the merger of WP:UWLS, and it was the main reason I merged the two projects. Sorry guys. If you could sort it out Ren, that would be really appreciated. The guide is on the project page here. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how it can work with the tables (or anything) surrounding the message.Did it ever work? is the number outside the table?I'm a little confused here.Is the user entering the message supposed to put the #? -- Renesis (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the  then I think a table got added in side the div or something, to tidy the image up as it messed the text up. Then it got changed again as it was overkill having divs and tables, and I think they just got lost in the changes over the last 3 months. might need a complete re-think on behind the scenes structure. Khukri(talk . contribs) 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using a small floated icon (or no icon at all) will fix the problem.  only uses a div container to create the coloured box. No container is necessary unless the icon is too big or the message too short. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just moved this section down to the bottom of that page to keep it in our minds, as it's very important. I've just been running some tests and to start I've changed Pathoschild's blocks back to the original divs used in the S/blocks warnings. I've also removed all div's and tables from my vandalism warnings. Now they are back to how they were at the beginning. I've put them on my sandbox which shows how they should look. What I've done is in the first group I've knocked the image size down to 25 pixels. As P mentioned above this hopefully removes the space that we were trying to get rid of in the first place between the first and second lines. If you look below you will see how it did look originally. It also includes the bullet/numbering convention. This is the last thing I can think of, no other ideas have come forward in the last few days. So if this is no good then we have one or two options, lose the images or lose the bullet/numbering. In the next couple of days I will modify the overview page so that it becomes the replacement page for WP:UTM and remove all the single issue templates from there and put them on a new page for the second part of this project. I ask for comments quite regularly and lucky if I get a couple. On this one I would really like some feedback and to know your thoughts on this last(ish) test. Cheers muchly Khukri(talk . contribs) 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my two cents, I did like the icons before (as they currently are on the overview page) but if that's screwing something up behind the scenes then obviously that's more important. The small icons are a step up from the large ones if they just go inline with the text, but it's not really the same effect. Whatever, I definately think we need something to distinguish these warnings from just plain text, but I don't really understand the workings behind these :p Rawling 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit: Just a random idea. If we like the idea of a small image in-line with the text, rather than a large one on one side, why not make it a longer, shorter rectangle - like a box with a word representing the icon, I'm not sure. Like the hand of ! icon could be replaced by "WARNING" on a little red rectangle. Just something to make the boxes stand out and to show what level they are at a glance, like the larger icons do in the current "buggered" version. Rawling 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Like this. Just the general idea. Rawling 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though a good idea, we wanted to use the images that have come to be almost a standard on Wikipedia. If these are unacceptable then I think we will have to go without icons. Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just looking at the templates as seen at Overview#Details. I agree that no divs/table (except block) is good such as with the uw-vandalismX ones. Is the plan to have an auto-numbering # sign added to the rest? --Geniac 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep I'll sort all that out when I go through them all. Khukri(talk . contribs) 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've hit a bit of an impasse as far as the block templates go.I had all kinds of good ideas in my head, but when I try to put them down in the actual templates, none of them seem to make sense.So, I think I've talked myself into being content with them as they are currently. —Krellis 16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oh how I know that feeling. Anyway have a good weekend. Khukri(talk . contribs) 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone screams stop across the top of the page, then I intend to go live with the overview page in around 9 hours. Lucas I see you are still editing, if you get a chance can you look at the couple of minor taks sitting up top. I will add the unblock text to the block warnings and create the single issue warnings table this morning and afternoon. Any other problems let me know. Khukri(talk . contribs) 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup I am reading the templates one last time. I corrected the faulty parser. If we can just agree on the level 1 templates I would say we are as ready as possible! ;) -- lucasbfr talk 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Knocked back one hour to 20:00utc Khukri(talk . contribs) 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{[[Template:uw|uw]]}} broken

message: I've moved this discussion to the bottom of the page again, just to keep it fresh in our minds. Right, since there were no disagreements over the last couple of days, as previously discussed I've changed all the templates to no div's/tables (except blocks) with a reduced sized image, and including the numbering system from warning layout. Some of you are going great guns at the minor re-wording and general tidying of the templates, so thank you for that. All that needs to be done between now and Monday is the continuing of this tidying, and the finishing of the single level warnings page, which I will do tonight or Monday. There are a couple of open tasks (top of page) if someone could look at them please. Also between now and Monday we need to have a final round of advertising of the changes. So if you could all please do a wee bit of spamming, noticeboards, IRC channels, the standard vandal patrollers we all know, that would be great. I suggest a roll out on Monday 18:00 UTC. 
User:Krellis any chance you can do your 4th level block you were talking of? Anyhoo it's a weekend of Heineken cup rugby and my birthday, so I'm going to be fairly incommunicado this weekend. Any probs leave a glaring announcement. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've hit a bit of an impasse as far as the block templates go.I had all kinds of good ideas in my head, but when I try to put them down in the actual templates, none of them seem to make sense.So, I think I've talked myself into being content with them as they are currently. —Krellis 16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oh how I know that feeling. Anyway have a good weekend. Khukri(talk . contribs) 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone screams stop across the top of the page, then I intend to go live with the overview page in around 9 hours. Lucas I see you are still editing, if you get a chance can you look at the couple of minor taks sitting up top. I will add the unblock text to the block warnings and create the single issue warnings table this morning and afternoon. Any other problems let me know. Khukri(talk . contribs) 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup I am reading the templates one last time. I corrected the faulty parser. If we can just agree on the level 1 templates I would say we are as ready as possible! ;) -- lucasbfr talk 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Knocked back one hour to 20:00utc Khukri(talk . contribs) 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 days left

message: I rewrote  and  a bit, I thought test2 was very strong "is unacceptable" for a level 2 warning. What do you think? -- lucasbfr talk 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. ...making test edits in Wikipedia articles even... would it be in or on? Khukri(talk . contribs) 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe "in" is correct, "to" would probably also be correct, "on" doesn't sound right to me."On Wikipedia", yes, but "in Wikipedia articles". —Krellis 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guts tell me "in" would mean inside WP articles and "on" would mean about WP articles. But again, my English is not as good as I would like (errr... is that even correct??). -- lucasbfr talk 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to me. --WikiSlasher 06:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: uw-test templates

message: : "Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users should be cleared of all content except the block notice. This block notice should explain the block reason, or link to the block log which does so."
Doing this serves to, in some sense, destroy the list of things that explain why a user was blocked.For example, this edit. Perhaps it would be better to say that the block is moved to the top of the page? --Mdwyer 05:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind you, that's a bad example; that block wasn't indefinite. --Mdwyer 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indefinitely Blocked Users

message: I've just started a list page here, for all the single level warnings that aren't covered by the overview page and will come into the second part of this project. There are some which have levels like the edit summaries and I would appreciate your thoughts on if we just create single warning for all of these or if any of them should be moved into the multiple warnings, such as edit summary, etc. Also add any that appear in Category:User warning templates or any special ones that you have stashed away somewhere, that you feel should be included. Khukri(talk . contribs) 13:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Single level warnings

message: Hi there! I've been following this project with great interest on and off for the past few months. I'm not sure if what I'm going to write about has been addressed yet (because you've got a LOT of information here!) so I apologize in advance if I'm repeating an already settled topic.
On the project's front page, you say that these warnings will be grouped under a header called Warnings on the user's talk page. It is my feeling that wording is a bit strong and could be construed as a violation of :WP:BITE. I've started using the more innocuous Regarding your edits in my own posts to user pages. I think including that or a similar phrase in the instructions for warnings would be the better course.
On the subject of instuctions, I'm hoping that you are writing a good set for the use of these new templates, especially as to how to apply them to anonymous IPs. I see abuse of the warning templates all the time especially towards anonymous IPs. Many's the time I've seen an IP w/out a warning in over a month and with good edits in the meantime, get blasted with a test3 or test4 for one vandalous edit. If an instruction set is not already written, I'd be happy to assist. Thank you for all the time and effort all of you have put into this project! --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Helloo! I know I'm new to your project, but could one of you answer my question please? Thanks! --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Even though in the last couple of days, we've tried to make some of the warnings more agf, etc, we can't lose sight of the fact that these are warnings. For a one off issue of a template, you wouldn't necessarily add a warnings heading, hence not coming into the realms of WP:BITE. But if you have a repeater IP address then I would recommend applying the heading. Just my take but if you feel it needs changing make a proposal and see waht everyone else thinks. As for the instruction, I'm hoping someone is going to offer to look after that one, so if you're looking for something to do ........:P. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Header & instructions

message: The current layout guidelines seem like they could stand for some improvement. One simple change needed would be that, because numbering is included in the templates, it isn't needed as part of the layout. This can be fixed by just removing the #'s and *'s from the list (except for when used for comments, where #'s are still needed).
A better method of breaking up warning notices than by month is also probably needed. Separating them by month will cause problems when a user is warned from the end of one month into the beginning of another. Breaking them up by when a user was banned (and the sequence restarted) also wouldn't work if the user was banned for a short time, and continued as soon as the ban ended. -- kenb215 talk 03:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain what you mean by "warned from the end of one month into the beginning of another." ? --Geniac 08:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless they were active through the changeover from one month to the other then I wouldn't see it as being an issue. Most vandals go from warnings 1 - 4in pretty short order till a block is applied, in that case the editor would just leave the warning grouped with the previous month. But if you wanted to correctly month it, then I'm sure the blocking admin will pick up fairly quickly whats going on. My opinion is that the monthing isn't an arbitary page sectioning, it's a recommendation to try and avoid the plethora of headers that are seen on repeater vandals page. I think the list on the front page just reflects that they're included in the template. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with the layout

message: I edited  and  to make them a bit more assuming good faith. I copy paste the table Sebastian wrote. Please edit the table above to see if we are on the same page -- lucasbfr talk 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to be just on the same page, but in the same table, so I added a new column for my assessments, and one for the next editor. To the next editor: When you add a yourself, please insert your column before "next" and increment the colspan value. Lucas: I just noticed that the original colum you put there was not necessarily your opinion, but I don't want to delete it either. Please feel to adjust or rename the column to what you had in mind. — Sebastian 06:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Most level 1 say "Welcome to ....." maybe the link can be put on the welcome? But yes good idea, though just make sure there aren't too many links on the template. Khukri -  19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly.  I will add the links, and please let me know if you find any of my additions to be unfavorable.  Dar-Ape 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow up: I chose not do add a link to  and  since these are rarely the first warnings to be issued, and thus other templates will have already link to WP:I.  Additionally, a link can always be added manually.  However, feel free to add a link to the templates if you'd like.  Dar-Ape 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's take a last look at the level 1 templates?

message: ==== thx&revert ====
It sounds a bit disingenous to say "thank you" and then revert an edit. — Sebastian 07:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most level 1 say "Welcome to ....." maybe the link can be put on the welcome? But yes good idea, though just make sure there aren't too many links on the template. Khukri -  19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly.  I will add the links, and please let me know if you find any of my additions to be unfavorable.  Dar-Ape 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow up: I chose not do add a link to  and  since these are rarely the first warnings to be issued, and thus other templates will have already link to WP:I.  Additionally, a link can always be added manually.  However, feel free to add a link to the templates if you'd like.  Dar-Ape 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: It sounds a bit disingenous to say "thank you" and then revert an edit. — Sebastian 07:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  thx&revert 

message: It is not helpful to talk of vandalism at level 1. See Template talk:Warn#Removing link to vandalism for a discussion. — Sebastian 07:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandal@1 

message: I think all level one templates could do with a link to the welcome page in some form or other.  Sometimes these warnings are given to newbies who simply made a mistake, and education about Wikipedia and how to edit it would be in order instead of simply a warning.  (This includes , , etc. ) If no one objects, I will go ahead with this.  Dar-Ape 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most level 1 say "Welcome to ....." maybe the link can be put on the welcome? But yes good idea, though just make sure there aren't too many links on the template. Khukri -  19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly.  I will add the links, and please let me know if you find any of my additions to be unfavorable.  Dar-Ape 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow up: I chose not do add a link to  and  since these are rarely the first warnings to be issued, and thus other templates will have already link to WP:I.  Additionally, a link can always be added manually.  However, feel free to add a link to the templates if you'd like.  Dar-Ape 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: I think the blocked templates need to be taken out of the "warning" table (and moved to it's own table).It's not really a big issue, but it seems out of place on so many levels. ---J.S(T/C/WRE) 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted that above this morning above and tend to agree. On it now. Thanks for the feedback Khukri(talk . contribs) 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I don't even see why we need three of them. When I looked at them 2 days ago, level 1 and 2 were almost identical, and level 3 only differed in the duration. I think that could be easier expressed with a parameter for duration. — Sebastian 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Besides, a block note isn't even a warning. — Sebastian 01:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it out the other day. There needs to be at least two levels imho, but as you say there is a text string parser in the warnings so you can differentiate there. Again move it over to WP:UTM sure you'll get more concensus there. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 09:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block templates... 

message: The first phase of these templates went live today. Thank you all very much for your participation, assitance and time. However, we are not finished yet. These templates are not finished, they will still need re-work and if you could be on hand for any queries in WP:UTM that would be appreciated. I have created the single issue details but the templates all need to be harmonised in the same manner we did with the multi level warnings. Then we have to wrap this project up and merge it with WP:UTM. I am going to do some work on the single issues page and within a couple of weeks I will hope to create a new overview page. Again thanks for all your help, and if you see any problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khukri(talk . contribs) 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates are now live. 

message: Nice work everyone. Have some Champagne ;) -- lucasbfr talk 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Well done on all those new user warnings. I was starting to get seriously frustrated with the old ones. You folks deserve a gold star. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just one little thing we forgot... 

message: What header size should I use now? have till now used level 4 headers (====) →AzaToth 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to worry about the headers so much anymore, on a frequent vandals talk page it's best to groupd the warnings by month. This allows visiting or blocking admins to quickly make an assessment of what is going on. See here for further details. Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: hmm, rather strange, but I'll see what I can do. Also, in the template , the prosa seems rather strange: "However, we wanted to remind you not to attack the other editors, which you did not do here, Latrell Sprewell. " →AzaToth 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Spot on, and I think I've sorted your npa syntax problem. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Header 

message: Should the old templates like  be redirected to the new versions or be deleted entirely? Thoughts? --Brad Beattie (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had alot of discussion about this a few weeks back, and it was thought best to leave the old system as is and as time goes by, once know we know we've perfected the warnings, then we'll redirect at a future date, most probably around 6 weeks time. It was one of the main reason why we adopted the uw- prefix. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect old templates? 

message: I think the numbering may now work, as people will always put a blank linke after or before, so the result will be that there are countless of ones. I think it will be better to just use a bullet. Also, I'll add a IP notice also for IP-adresses, and that will also interfere. →AzaToth 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's going to be one of those things that editors will grow into, and it's written in the layout guidelines. Once we've finished the single issue templates then the intention is to shutdown this project and move all the documentation over to WP:UTM. But in the meantime it might be an idea to put a note on the WP:UTM front page. edit conflict Can you not add the IP notice as the 2nd function within the parser? Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like this? User talk:127.0.0.1 →AzaToth 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks spot on to me. I might grab a copy of your tool a bit later on if that's OK. Khukri(talk . contribs) 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think I got it right now :) User talk:24.239.170.189 →AzaToth 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about the header table, I would remove the Subst comment, it's on Template:Templatesnotice but is it necessary to for the page of a warned editor? However it's your code and the rest looks good. Also this project will be the place to come for now, but that will change in the coming months. cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just followed the layout guideline :) →AzaToth 22:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If there's no blank space between the warnings, the number count works fine. I fixed the user page you pointed to. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be missing something. What exactly is the purpose of the numbers? Wouldn't  always be level "2" and  always be level "3"? Why don't we just number them in advance? -- Satori Son 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm starting to sound obtuse, but I'm still not getting it. Why do we care about the total number of warnings of any kind that have been posted? Don't we just care about the last level warning given in the relevant category? For example, when I'm trying to decide whether to report someone to WP:AIV for vandalism, I need to confirm the user has specifically received a  first, not whether they have received four previous warnings of any kind, right? Or do they all aggregate? -- Satori Son 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, please see related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Question on the formatting of the templates regarding whether or not the numbering is even working as intended.-- Satori Son 05:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not defending having the list syntax in the template; I'm not sure when that happened, but either way is fine for me. The numbering organizes pages very neatly and legibly. For example, compare User_talk:195.92.168.163 before and after maintenance. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numbering 

message: Thank you to all who have been doing such good work!I had have a question about the new look at WP:UTM, though.I'm probably just missing it, but is there still a template equivalent to ?While I have not used this template extremely frequently, it is quite a good one to be able to use when the time is right, and I would be disappointed if it were not included in the next generation of warning templates.Dar-Ape 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the upper level vandalism templates, like  or  would probably be the best to use to replace .Their language is pretty close to the strength of bv. —Krellis 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Dar, we need something similar to  in the armoury. or  don't fit the job.Mr Stephen 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh nice one that . I assume you can replace it by one that has the same look and feel that the previous one. Or you can do something like  -- lucasbfr talk 09:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing templates: bv and longterm4im 

message: See Wikipedia:Revised vandalism warning system. This is an old proposal of mine that never gained consensus. I'm linking it here just for people to look at an see what they make of it.--Azer Red Si? 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a good policy to me. As for the warnings themselves, it seems to me your three different levels could be mapped to our existing levels. The only problem I can see is "this is your only warning", but that seems only a cosmetic issue that could technically easily be solved with an optional parameter like "thisis=only" vs "thisis=last".— Sebastian 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An old proposal of mine 

message: Could the warning gurus take a second look at the text of the copyvio warnings. They currently say "your recent addition appears to be copyrighted text". Well, unless the information is public domain, of course it is - even if it's licensed under the GFDL or CC licences. This is OK. The second thing, as can be seen from the preceeding text, is that they are not useful for users who have added copyvio images. The templates tell the user to rewrite the images in their own words. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "your recent addition appears to be a copyright violation"? —{admin} Pathoschild 07:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be an elegant solution. Unfortunately though it seems  and  will need to be re-written more comprehensively. "we cannot accept copyright violations for legal reasons, as it is not compatible with the GFDL" doesn't really convey the intention of the notice, and "your contributions must be in your own words". I might get around to editing them, but they do need changing. -- zzuuzz(talk) 18:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio templates

message: Something that occurred to me: the templates are very likely to be a privileged target for real vandals, and should eventually be protected from editing. On the other hand, they are not set in stone (and are likely to get tweaked in the next days, considering the feedback we get) and protecting them might give the impression we don't want to discuss any change. What do you think? -- lucasbfr talk 09:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would leave it for a wee while, as there are alot of us non admins, who wish to continue working on them. I'm not in favour of full protection as previously, as there are a number of us with them all on their watch list. But it's an necessary evil, I would maybe post it to the admins noticeboard as I know there was issues with template protection only recently. Cheers Khukri(talk . contribs) 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can semi-protect them if needs be. That way non-admins can still edit the pages, but vandals generally can't. Lemme know. --Brad Beattie (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wouldn't mind spending the time that would be appreciated. Khukri(talk . contribs) 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When do we protect the templates? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problem templates 

message: For any problems, issues, ideas, etc for the new multi level templates, could I suggest we keep them all grouped on the talk page here please WT:UTM. Regards Khukri(talk . contribs) 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All new points on [[WT:UTM]] 

message: As an exercise, I just went through a couple of transcluded new-style user warnings and did the substitution (with sig=n), and marked them as unsigned.It's a bit of a PITA, and remarkably error prone to do by hand (since not substing generally means they don't get signed).I noticed another editor had tried before me on one of them and ended up just reverting their attempt.
Has anyone considered a bot for this purpose?I'd be willing to look into it if no-one else is yet, and people think it's a reasonable idea (I'm quite capable, and well qualified).
A couple of useful bot-worthy tasks I can think of off the top of my head:
* Subst/sign transcluded  instances
* Look for "double signed" warnings (although I haven't seen any of these yet, I expect they will start to crop up)
* Reminding non-substing and double signing editors about the proper use of the user warning templates 
*: Maybe this could happen after they've got it wrong n times
* Possibly start reorganising new warnings as per WP:UW#Layout
*: I expect this is a bit more controversial though, and would need loads of discussion about the trigger for a reorg.
So, does anyone know of an existing effort to do a similar bot?Does anyone have any comments on my ideas?Is this even the best place to be discussing this? Mark Chovain 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, bring it up on WP:UTM. There's a fair chance however that the sigs won't be there in 12 hours or so, as there's a strawpoll on the go over there. Khukri(talk . contribs) 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitution bot 

message: When I posted a warning on a page, without specify a page, the result is as you can see on User talk:71.231.107.188 →AzaToth 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug 

message: 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)

text: Moved discussion over to WT:UTM Khukri(talk . contribs) 12:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Template:TestTemplates 

message: :Moved from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace:
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)
thread_title:  Usage guidelines 

message: Are  ,  , and  still in the process of being harmonized?I just noticed they were not included on the redesigned WP:UTM.As handy as they are in the battle against vandalism, I hope they are not being depreciated.--Kralizec! (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved over to WT:UTM Khukri(talk . contribs) 14:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrongsummary warnings missing? 

message: Should we trim some of the welcome templates? We should take this opportunity to do away with a few duplicate ones, even ones on the new UTM page. Xiner (talk, email) 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yep we we do the single issue templates. Khukri(talk . contribs) 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's not so bad if there's some variety. At least I would like to ask that  remains. — Sebastian 08:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many welcome templates 

message: Since the drmspeedy and drmafd templates were added to the grid, I made some more consistent with our grid. Here they are: , , , . Feel free to correct my lousy English! :) -- lucasbfr talk 15:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: same with , , ,  -- lucasbfr talk 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. I had imagined the deletes being suffice but that was a bit naive really and a bit too boilerplate. all of the drm tags could do with this treatment if you have the time. I'm still a bit incommunicado but should be back this week sometime to get phase II off the ground. Khukri -  16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would change afd to xfd, and change the context a bit so they may be used for tfd, mfd etc... →AzaToth 16:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, why didn't I think of that Khukri -  19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea but I can't seem to find the right wording to be general and informative enough. If someone has an idea... :) -- lucasbfr talk 12:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I made some AfD templates: 

message: I've created redirects that cover shortened names for the "vanilla vandalism" templates. You can now use "uw-v1" through "uw-v4" and "uw-vandal1" through "uw-vandal4". (Someone else already covered "uw-vand1" through "uw-vand4".)
I'd encourage others to make shortened names for all of the rest of the families of warnings.
Atlant 13:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortened versions 

message: Please see User:SunStar Net/Template:Articleguidance: I hope this may be of some use to us on this WikiProject. It's a friendly means of warning a user, and keeps within the 'assume good faith' principle! --SunStar Nettalk 13:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm I like the wording, more friendly than . And being a bit more specific sorry can't find the word... I mean something a bit like "talkative"? on the guidelines doesn't hurt (while remaining general enough for the template to be useful of course). Perhaps you might wish to merge both templates? -- lucasbfr talk 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. --SunStar Nettalk 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same as Lucas, however I would change it from first person (I), to either first person plural (we), orif possible make it person neutral entirely. Try and merge it into the and I think it's a winner making that warning more friendly.Khukri -  18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template about articles I created 

message: Some of you may have noticed I've resurrected the overview page, to start the second phase of this project. I need about a week to get it ready, so if you'd be so kind as to leave me be with it in the mean time that would be appreciated. Cheers Khukri -  06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview |Overview]] page 

message: I have created some warning templates to use when legal threats are made.
:, , 
I was looking for something to use for User:63.152.10.6 and 72.69.213.21 and couldn't find anything.    Any feedback or tweaking of the wording is welcome. --Aude (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the nature and severity of both legal threats and the releasing of personal info they will be covered by a single issue template, with a one warning and then you're out type approach. However they won't come into being for a couple of weeks yet so in the meantime by all measn make your accessible to everyone. Khukri -  08:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal threat warnings

message: When vandal-fighting previously, I occasionally used the sequence 
* →  → WP:AIV
for blatant vandalism, especially regarding a string of obscene words and concepts placed in bad faith. May I make these suggestions to aid with WP:UW/O, regarding my opinion about how redirects should go?
* → 
* → 
A very, very important purpose of templates is to inform the recipient of policy and guidelines. "Vandalism will result in a block" is WP:VAND in a nutshell. It's also important to let people know that people can't revert with impunity. It's good for templates to be short, but they should contain sufficient amount of policy and policy explanation; just a side note to bring up, which may not apply. GracenotesT § 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't bv redirect to ? --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over un-substituted use, I guess that you're right. I've always used it in the manner I specified above; this difference is probably a result of not having an organized WikiProject to handle it! With regards to content, though, bv seems to be more like , with the whole "continue to vandalize results in a block" idea. The only thing is that uw-v3 has softer language than bv. Perhaps bv could redirect to it is the language were a bit more explicit and to-the-point (like bv is)? For now, your suggestion sounds good; however, I don't want to alienate those that don't like 4im templates, among whose ranks I shall not be found. GracenotesT § 07:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatantvandal and Vw

message: Does the project group plan to ask one of the subst: bot owners to modify their bot to search for non-substituted warnings using the new templates?  I've been running into quite a few non-subst:'ed warnings.-- Gogo Dodo 06:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well volunteered that man.Khukri -  10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see... -- Gogo Dodo 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may also want to see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Forcing template substitution, a somewhat unusual but still plausible option. GracenotesT § 20:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I asked and it's done.  WinBot and Alphachimpbot are now subst'ing the uw-* templates.  Those are the only two bots that I know of that are doing template substitution. -- Gogo Dodo 07:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou very much. Khukri -  07:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot substitution 

message: Why do the block templates (e.g. ) have a link to the talk page? They're placed on talk pages, so the link doesn't do anything. What other pages are they going to be on? – Qxz 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a reasonable point I can't think of anything. Remove it if you wish if there is a reason behind it then it can easily be reverted later. Cheers Khukri -  15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block templates 

message: Is the warning "Please do not touch this page as I'm currently setting up the second phase of this project. as I'm currently setting up the second phase of this project." still valid? I'm sorry, I noticed it too late. Please feel free to revert my last edit. — Sebastian 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a prob, I've been busy as hell with work so I'm going to remove it and ask others to get stuck in. Khukri -  10:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning: "Please do not touch this page" 

message: Unfortunatly I'm too busy as hell at the moment, what with work and house renovations, which means I can't devote as much time at the moment to the single issue template as I did when we did the multi-level warnings. If regulars on this project who know what's going on could visit the re-done overview page and add their comments that would be appreciated. We're trying to identify what there are duplicates of, what can be redirected where, the single issue templates that need to be created or left as is, what can be XfD or de-categorised. Then we can go on to deciding the layout on all of these templates and start the whole shooting match off again. coople of things I've been mulling over is the uw- prefix is it necessary for single issue, or do we want the same for all, if it's not a warning do you use ut- um- or nothing? I'd like to see the category change from user warnings to user messages as is the name of this page here. At the moment welcomes are listed as warnings, we can then add the shared IP's headers etc without any problems. Please keep all the discussion about this over here and not WT:UTM, that way we can keep the existing templates discussion away from theoretical templates and what may happen. I see a couple of you have started to get stuck in, but please I'd like more opinions. Thanks and over n out. Khukri -  08:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed

message: I created a quick template called uw-thankyou.  A user that I had warned responded with an apology — or at least an explanation of their actions.  I'd like some way to take the bite out of my warning, but I don't think removing the warning is the right thing to do.  So I created something that says, "The problem still happened, but you appear to be a good editor and you have promised to do better."  Does this fit into the spirit and goals of the UW project? --Mdwyer 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK but it shouldn't really be uw as it's not a warning. But add it to the overview page and we'll see how it goes. Cheers Khukri -  15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll try.  I'll try not to break anything. Mdwyer 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you template 

message: I created  today, which can be seen here:
 Please do not make racist comments towards other users, as you did at . Wikipedia has a strict 'no personal attacks' policy. Users who continue to be racist towards other users may be blocked. You have been blocked for  for your comments at .
This is intended for use on controversial topics that involve racism, e.g. Israeli apartheid, Balkan-related topics etc.
Feedback is appreciated. --sunstar nettalk 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "you have been blocked part" should be taken out. And this template should be like 4im (only warning) --TeckWizParlateContribs@ 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to fix it. I made some mistakes, but hey, you can fix them if you want, no big deal. --sunstar nettalk 02:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's logical to add the uw- prefix, so people may separate the new and old templates, also it enables clearing the template namespace from words that have ambiguous meaning, and often means something else than an user warning, both of multiple and single level warnings. One example of this is the legacy template , because  was taken (what now drm stands for is beyond me). If we want, we could always expand the prefix to um- for notices (non-warnings and welcome messages). →AzaToth 13:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea, once the overview page has been completed with secondary comments I'll flesh out all the single issue templates and put them all in this format for people to see. Then take into account all Gracenotes shortcuts, I think we could get a pretyy comprehensive harmonised system. Khukri 17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New racism template 

message: I tried to use , but the preview function showed that my "Additional text" was not incorporated into the message. I cannot discern why, so I infer that there is an error in the template structure. (As a result, I ended up escalating the warning level and sending the user , which worked the way it is supposed to work.)--orlady 14:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops fixed. Tell me what you think since I made the last sentence optional and diseapear when you add the additional text. Having it and the additional text seemed weird to me. -- lucasbfr talk 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I haven't tried to send anyone that warning recently to see how it works, but I endorse your idea of deleting that last sentence when the additional text element is used. Thanks! --orlady 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template glitch in npov1? 

message: Hi -- A little confused about the "comments" on the front page, so I'm posting here. Currently the recommendation on "wrongsummaryX" templates is to merge with "edit summary personalX".  The edit summary personalX summaries are about abusive summaries; the wrongsummaryX templates are about inaccurate or intentionally misleading summaries. I've had encounters with editors who attempt to disguise their edits with misleading summaries, describing as "reverting vandalism" when they're actually vandalizing, etc. This is really confusing for folks who are just scanning lists and reading edit summaries, and a tag that specifically addresses this behavior is important for documenting the problem. --lquilter 16:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comments, misleading edit summaries

message: What isn't documented at , and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected), is that the template takes an optional parameter. , or even , will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter:   you get:
:Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
::::(and the rest of the template stays the same)
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben 05:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template 

message: Khukri had suggested:"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase."   Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding  already had shortcut , I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since  and  were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:
That should save a bit of typing time. -- Ben 08:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I paralleled the naming format and shortcuts of the pre-existing (and protected) , adding rfc-prefixed shortcuts to meet this project's standards. Since that template's  /  formats are already in heavy use (and in policy), I thought it best not to delete them. Redirects let people use the format they prefer: full words for those who can't remember the abbreviation, and abbreviations for those who want to save typing time. -- Ben 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On WT:RFC someone asked for a template to notify other users of a conduct RFC (not about them), which I hadn't thought to write because such a short text is almost as easy to just type from scratch, but hey, if it saves a few keystrokes and it's wanted, that's reason enough.  So I've created  (used as  for short), and it's in the table. -- Ben 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Having done some tinkering, I'm actually feeling rather proud of  / , after all. I built in a bit of functionality that makes it a little more than just a short text-printing macro. When someone's already been the subject of one or more previous RFCs, the new RFC is supposed to have a number appended to the name. RFC#1 may be "John Doe", but after that come "John Doe 2", "John Doe 3", and so forth, which would put the burden on you to look up the current RFC's number and add that to the notice. Originally I made this an optional parameter: , etc. But now, as long as the numbering is standard format (not in parentheses or Roman numerals or anything odd like that), and all the RFCs are still around to be counted, this template will look up the number for you and provide the correct link -- so all you have to provide is the username.    <wipes sweat from brow>    -- Ben 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcuts for RFC-related templates 

message: moved down to re-highlight
Right here we go again, deja vu anyone?
OK I've listed all the templates and other stuff that come under the :Category:User warning templates on the overview page. This is so we can identify what in the old system needs to be redirected where, what single issue templates need to be created and what needs to be deleted. I've gone through the whole list of warnings and added my comments to what I think should be done. Yes I know there will be a couple of mistakes so don't come storming in as others have done recently, making demands about changes, I've just gone through 400 odd templates, I won't be very sympathetic. What I would like however is you to find the mistakes, I've left another comments column and some of you (thankyou) have already started verifying my work. I'm not asking all of you to do all of them but take a section and double check my work please. I've bullet pointed a couple of ideas below and would appreciate comments and thoughts on them please. Once we have a couple of people in agreement or nothing come out of the woodwork, then we'll start creating or tidying the single issue templates, doing the redirects, deletions etc. If anyone has anything else that jumps out at them, bullet point it and add your moniker. Khukri -  15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Khukri, it's also rather important that you note the existence of a redirect template, , and its respective category, :Category:Redirects from warning template. Not tagging redirect user warning templates with this will create a lot of work. And if the template replacement is going to happen soon, as many people as possible need to be informed about it. Finally, if there's anything related multi-level warnings that I can do, just ask! GracenotesT § 20:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a trip planned back to the UK next week for ten days, so will most probably start shortly after then. If anyone knows much about images on wikipedia there's a shed load of image templates that need to be sorted. Cheers Khukri 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it decided (or not discussed) to use the "uw" prefix for images, or use "im"? If not discussed, anyone can feel free to weigh in their opinion. GracenotesT § 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer the uw prefix; even though these templates deal with images, they're still warnings of a sort. On another note, would anyone object if I moved/copied the suggested layout for warnings from WP:UW to WP:UWT? That layout seriously neatens up the talk pages and more people should be using it. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 08:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on my list of things to do of merge WP:UW and WP:UTM, but i'd preferred to have done it after the project was wrapped up. But I'm beginning to think it's overkill these two projects, and we bosh everthing straight over to WP:UTM. Khukri 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry if you're feeling unappreciated.  I can tell you, personally, that it is quite the opposite.  I think you're doing a great job, and I'm not helping because I'm not sure I see where I can help you.  I'll look again, though.  Sorry about that.  --Mdwyer 17:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about being unappreciated, we saw the furore that came after a handful of us did the multi-warning templates, with editors coming in saying how dare we change the existing system without personally telling them. I have some pretty specific idea on how I see the new system evolvoing and I'm quite confident there are quite a few other editors that share my views. But the last thing this project or wikipedia needs is a one man show, that even smacks of it being railroaded through. Hence I need as many view points as possible to corroborate this work, as there will always be that one editor out there who will want to revert it all because they weren't personally involved. Cheers Khukri 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The next step (second phase) 

message: Guys, a few of you have added some comments to the overview page, I'll leave it a couple more days and if I here nothing else I'll take it as a green light, to create all the templates and put the redirects in place. I think it maybe better in that regards as it actually gives you guys something to get stuck into a mold to your needs. But I would appreciate some feedback. Cheers muchly Khukri 10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Khukri, it's also rather important that you note the existence of a redirect template, , and its respective category, :Category:Redirects from warning template. Not tagging redirect user warning templates with this will create a lot of work. And if the template replacement is going to happen soon, as many people as possible need to be informed about it. Finally, if there's anything related multi-level warnings that I can do, just ask! GracenotesT § 20:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a trip planned back to the UK next week for ten days, so will most probably start shortly after then. If anyone knows much about images on wikipedia there's a shed load of image templates that need to be sorted. Cheers Khukri 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it decided (or not discussed) to use the "uw" prefix for images, or use "im"? If not discussed, anyone can feel free to weigh in their opinion. GracenotesT § 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer the uw prefix; even though these templates deal with images, they're still warnings of a sort. On another note, would anyone object if I moved/copied the suggested layout for warnings from WP:UW to WP:UWT? That layout seriously neatens up the talk pages and more people should be using it. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 08:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on my list of things to do of merge WP:UW and WP:UTM, but i'd preferred to have done it after the project was wrapped up. But I'm beginning to think it's overkill these two projects, and we bosh everthing straight over to WP:UTM. Khukri 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry if you're feeling unappreciated.  I can tell you, personally, that it is quite the opposite.  I think you're doing a great job, and I'm not helping because I'm not sure I see where I can help you.  I'll look again, though.  Sorry about that.  --Mdwyer 17:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about being unappreciated, we saw the furore that came after a handful of us did the multi-warning templates, with editors coming in saying how dare we change the existing system without personally telling them. I have some pretty specific idea on how I see the new system evolvoing and I'm quite confident there are quite a few other editors that share my views. But the last thing this project or wikipedia needs is a one man show, that even smacks of it being railroaded through. Hence I need as many view points as possible to corroborate this work, as there will always be that one editor out there who will want to revert it all because they weren't personally involved. Cheers Khukri 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <font face="verdana" color=#ff0000>IMPORTANT</font>

message: , an admin who participates on WP:RFC/NAME, mentioned there:
:New - Optionally, if you block a name that is clearly vandalism or trolling, you can use .
I'm moving the line off RFC/NAME because that page really isn't for discussing "grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames" -- these should be reported to WP:AIV instead. This is really not an RFC-related template. However, it's worth bringing to the template-messages/user-talk-namespace and WikiProject-user-warnings talk pages, for fitting into the new standardized scheme.
BigDT comments: "The singular thing that I care about is that in some fashion, people who are obviously sockpuppets of banned users, individuals creating trolling usernames, etc, don't receive the standard  message that invites them to create a new account.  Whether the template is named unbv, uw-name4, whatever, and where the template is listed, I am really not picky one bit." (There was more discussion here.) -- Ben 07:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, and is certainly a problem becoming more prevalent. Only suggestion as it is a block would or could we not change the look to be similar to uw-block3? Cheers Khukri 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:UsernameBlocked-vandal 

message: Thought you should be aware of the discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Parameters for user warning templates.↔NMajdan•talk 19:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to post a link :) Thanks for the pointer, Nmajdan. GracenotesT § 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I responded on the VP section and linked here as well.↔NMajdan•talk 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on [[WP:VPT]] 

message: There is a lot of information regarding what templates there are, how to phrase them, etc.  But they all seem to assume some basic knowledge of the way templates are used.  Perhaps the information is out there and I just didn't see it...  But for example, I've just corrected a number of vandal edits (for the first time) and would like to warn the user...  I think the user deserves a vandal3 warning (assume bad faith) since the edits were obvious vandalism, insertion of profanity & nonsense words.  But it wasn't clear to me what I do with the template.  I think it goes on the user's talk page?  A couple explicit examples of the most common templates the average editor might want to use would be nice, organized like:
  You see this:
  A proper response is this:
  Placed here:
And my apologies if there is already something like this that I just didn't find. Jeffadams78 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The table on this page shows you what text to include in your message.  In this case, you would
  Type this:  (you should also probably add your signature with ~~~~)
  or this:  (if you want to specify the page that he vandalized)
on the user's talk page.   Then you would end up with this text:
   Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. 
and since this is a notice, it is unlikely that he would respond to it (if he did, he would respond on your talk page).  Anyways, I'm glad to see such a responsible new contributor, and I hope you enjoy your time here :). --MaskedSheik 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is also a recommended layout over at WP:UW that includes a Warnings header on the user's Talk page, with subheaders in the form of "Month Year".  Each warning then is placed in a numbered lists, with blocks being bullet items. --GargoyleMT 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we have some examples please? 

message: I apologise if this is not the right place to ask, if so, please direct me to the right place. I have one question, is there a guideline or rule that states if the removal of warning templates from a user's talk page by the user him or herself is allowed or disallowed? I faintly remember having read something like that but I'm unable to find it in the various policy pages. IntinnTalk! 19:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the current consensus is that people are allowed to remove what they want from their talk page. The templates you are talking about were deleted last Fall. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archives/2007/01#Removing_warnings if you want more information. -- lucasbfr talk 12:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks! IntinnTalk! 12:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing warnings 

message: Right I'm going off for a couple of weeks, back to the UK.
I see a few of you are still plugging away at the overview page, which after I thought no-one was interested anymore is quite encouraging. Most of you are aware of the work done during the multi-level warnings, and know how the few of us who implemented the changes work. What I'm suggesting is when I come back, I will attack all of the suggestions on the overview page, in a very short amount of time.  Lucas, Gracenotes, Aza, Ben, Will and all the other stalwarts, if you could all just do a handful of corroborating, or add fresh view points that would be greatly appreciated. Anyway traa fer now and speak soon. Khukri 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibreak 

message: What I think we need is a warning which is given to those who talk in the article, and by that I mean, pretty much the same warning we give to those who use the Talk pages as a chat room but, in this case, in an article page. Ive been reverting many of these lately. What do you think? --James Bond 07:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be looking for , , , and . GracenotesT § 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not really. Those warning are intended for those users who use a Talk page as a forum and not to discuss how to improve the article. What I'm talking about is a warning for users who talk in the article page itself: (e.g.: in the Big Mac page, a user edits the page and writes "I love Big Macs, what about you? I always buy the fries as well"). --James Bond 09:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh snap! I just noticed that there is a  template however it only has one level of warning at the moment. Maybe someone should merge that template with these , , , and .--James Bond 09:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about this 

message: Please see User:SunStar Net/Template:Vandalblock, this is a new one I created that is intended to warn vandals that when their block expires, that vandalism will be taken seriously.
In both examples below, 24 hours is used as an example, though any parameter can be specified.
Here it is, subst'ed for clarity:
	You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for vandalism.Please edit constructively once your block has expired. Vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia.</span></small>
 - the original version.
and here's the version that could be a template (note, it will change, due to transcluding here!)
Feel free to give me some feedback on this, if it's accepted as a useful template, I will code some more for you. --sunstar nettalk 14:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New vandalism warning template 

message: I wanted to gush, but first went to look at older discussions.  I found a comment saying that icons everywhere weren't going to be helpful.  Which was jarring, as that is what I wanted to gush about.  
I had just come from placing another warning on a user page where, inspecting to make sure I'd not typed "{uw-test1..." yet again, I finally 'got' the icons!  Since it was obvious the source of the multiple graffiti was not a native English speaker, icons suddenly took on a much greater importance.  I mean 'non-constructive' and 'reverted' are not beginners' English.  But  and the rest are quite simple.  Thank you!  And any chance you could make the icons larger at each successive level?  (I didn't go that far back in the discussions. :-) Shenme 06:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the icons.  It draws attention to each individual warning.  I noticed that the old warnings don't have icons anymore and its hard to quickly differentiate the warnings that are posted in succession. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally like the icons too, I think they indeed add some clarity (even if a non english speaker won't probably understand what we intend so tell him with a level 1 warning anyway). But I fear that changing the size of the warning when we increment the level might result in a... weird outcome on the pages. But that's just my opinion, I don't recall it being discussed at a point to be honest. -- lucasbfr talk 09:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulness of icons in warnings: another aspect 

message: Note: I created an FAQ page. Feel free to improve it. GracenotesT § 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic idea, I think we can not just use it for this project, but also afterwards when we merge WP:UW and WP:UTM in a few weeks (hopefully). Khukri 08:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So many thanks, it looks great! I took the liberty to remove the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 1#Template:Obscene, I couldn't find the discussion on the page and the deletion log for the template mentions the same discussion than for . (Am I being clear? Sorry if that's not the case) -- lucasbfr talk 09:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAQ

message: Q. Do you agree that once all the issues identified on the overview page have been resolved, that the "WikiProject user warnings WP:UW" can be merged with "Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM"?
Closed as per above strawpoll. Khukri 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Projects merge strawpoll (closes 20th March)

message: I nominated these for deletion, in order to replace them with a single issue template, . Please come by and voice your opinion there :) -- lucasbfr talk 09:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:uw-legal1]], [[Template:uw-legal2]], [[Template:uw-legal3]] 

message: May I suggest three changes to all templates:
#Adding the diff parameter right after the sentence that has a latent link to the first article. For example, change  from
#:...test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to revert them. If you would...
#:to
#:...test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to revert them.  If you would...
#Have an #ifexist parameter for all templates, except for those involving article creation. For example,
#:...test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to revert them. If you would...
#:to
#:...test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to revert them. If you would...
#:Except that I would implement 1 and 2 in the same edit. This will allow people to list pages. For example, "1=foo and bar". This was suggested a while ago on the village pump, and makes sense to me.
#Standardize the <-- --> comments at the end of each template. Some say "", others say "Template:Uw-whatever". I would suggest the latter, since it will help newbies find the template quicker (and hopefully not vandalize it).
#This is not likely to happen, but change the parameter of "subst" to "s". I often don't type out "subst=subst:" since it's too long, but "s=subst:", maybe. Of course, this will have to be coordinated with AzaToth's twinkle warning system.
I would like to do this soon, although I'm in no hurry. The templates may get complicated, and  will have to be updated, but at at least I'm fine with that... GracenotesT § 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UTM-wide changes 

message: Would it be a good idea to create a template that encourages people who upload freely-licensed materials to Wikipedia instead of the Commons (some who do it quite often) to upload them to the Commons instead? I am starting to tire of having to delete duplicate images here that are duplicated on the Commons, and having to clean up after the MoveToCommons assistant, which just copies the license used here which often causes unintentional plagiarism and other bad licensing (e.g. Image:Foo by User:Alice, which is put under the GFDL with disclaimers here using  is uploaded to the Commons with the same tag by User:Bob, but that tag on the Commons has no disclaimers, so it violates the GFDL by removing the disclaimers and also leads to unintentional plagiarism by crediting Bob, when the correct tag to use there would have been , which states that Alice created the image and also preserves the disclaimers. I am quite busy, so I do not have the time to think up the correct words for this template. Jesse Viviano 22:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyways, if I was not busy, I would still not want to write this out because I am getting annoyed at these people, so I am afraid that I would write the template in the wrong tone. Jesse Viviano 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't seem like a bad idea, and I think I know enough about commons images to take care of this. A single-level notice, I think it should be... perhaps called "uw-freeimage". GracenotesT § 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I suggest starting it with 'im-' ? if you look at the overview page, there's quite a few image related warnings that require the attention of someone who knows the intricacies of the image area on wikipedia. Khukri 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a new template 

message: Is there any standard template message to gently remind people to categorize the AfD debates they have created?  I looked but couldn't find one.  If none exists, should one be created or is that too nit-picky? Alternately, we could modify Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD to produce a warning when a debate is not categorized.  —dgiestc 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a quick look through here but couldn't find anything. There is though somewhere but not under this category a template used for not correctly categorising the speedy deletes. If someone can find that I'll make one up for you no problems or if not I'll have a crack at it later on this evening. Khukri 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, no need, I'm quite handy with templates so I might cook up one myself.  But for now I'm examining how hard it would be to modify the AFD template to automatically generate the warning. —dgiestc 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD debate categorization 

message: As if one version of this incredibly ugly image wasn't enough, there are now two of them in use. The version on  (:Image:Stop hand.svg) is different to the one on  (:Image:Stop.png). I thought the whole point of these new templates was standardization. Please fix this. Thanks – Qxz 17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed all I could see to :Image:Stop hand.svg, since that's the one we agreed on a long time ago if I'm correct. (I agree it is ugly though ^^) -- lucasbfr talk 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I preferred the (:Image:Stop.png) because it looks a bit better than the ugly SVG image. Although now it deems that most people want all the templates to look the same so it'll stay that way. If somebody can update the (:Image:Stop hand.svg icon so it looks better than go ahead. Thats all. -- Hdt83 | Talk 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "If somebody can update the :Image:Stop hand.svg icon so it looks better than go ahead", would changing them all to :Image:Stop.png count as changing it so it looks better, or not? I ask only because that's what's likely to happen; I'm certainly not going to do it – Qxz 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the ugly stop hand will discourage potential vandals so they can avoid having that marring their talk pages. Of course, that might just be a pipe dream... --Valley2city₪‽ 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we're actually using the image to physically beat them over the head (something I'm all for, by the way), I don't think so. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the SVG image is ugly, but it's kind of important to use the SVG image rather than PNG, for various reasons, least of all the resizing issue. However, the PNG image that you linked to has just (two days ago) been converted to SVG in all its glory, as Stop hand nuvola.svg. It can now be used in the templates safely. If someone with AWB could go through and replace, it'd be nice. Maybe we should gather a straw poll of opinion before doing that, however? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiousity, what are those reasons?  When the only use of the image is guaranteed to be smaller than the physical file (such as when its an icon), then sizing is not an issue.  And the SVG are converted to PNG for display by the browser anyway.  So exactly why is it important to use SVG? -- Renesis (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a problem at all, I was just waiting on someone to sort one out and I'd knock them off I don't think there's many but I'll run them through tomorrow, at the same time as I do another potential problem from User:Winhunter. Khukri 14:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So should we start replacing the icons in the lv4 templates? Or do we have something here that can replace all the icons in one "sweep"? -- Hdt83  Chat 08:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to do it this afternoon using AWB, at the same time as I do a change to the  problem that was identified by User:Winhunter. Also I'm going to reset the image size on the blocks, as User:Z.E.R.O. changed them yesterday without completing the set. Khukri 08:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good! -- Renesis (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To counter the effects I increased the size slightly from 25px to 30px so that it looks clearer. I think that it looks good and matches all the other icons great! -- Hdt83  Chat 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old image looked a little out of place, as the blue i and the warning triangle were already stylised in the 3D glass/nuvola/OSX/Windows Vista way anyway. I think it looks great! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it; looks great!  --Kralizec! (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Stop hand"

message: I'm concerned that the new :Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg goes a little overboard in the style department.  In the small 25px size it's usually seen on a talk page, it looks a lot less like a stop signal than :Image:Stop hand.svg.  I can appreciate the efforts to make all icons and images here look as good and as professional as they can look, but when someone needs to look a little longer at the image to see what it is, it's defeating the purpose a little.  I think the image should be as immediately clear as possible, and not try to look like a shiny button or something.  Could the stop hand image be switched back to use :Image:Stop hand.svg? Robotman1974 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To counter the effects I increased the size slightly from 25px to 30px so that it looks clearer. I think that it looks good and matches all the other icons great! -- Hdt83  Chat 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old image looked a little out of place, as the blue i and the warning triangle were already stylised in the 3D glass/nuvola/OSX/Windows Vista way anyway. I think it looks great! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it; looks great!  --Kralizec! (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image too stylised?

message: I removed user pages from :Category:User warning templates, :Category:User block templates and :Category:User indefinitely blocked templates.  This included both accidentally included user talk pages plus all of the warning templates in user space.  During this I also fixed Template:Replaceable short which had not used  around the category. —Doug Bell talk 18:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I now also removed the user pages from :Category:User talk header templates. —Doug Bell talk 19:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed user pages from categories 

message: I think it should stay, as new user warnings will be needed at some point in the future, and this is a useful project for people who want to learn how to create and edit templates.
Also, I'm not sure about the ugly "X" sign in  that's used on a lot of the uw- templates. I preferred the old :Image:Octagon-warning.svg to be honest.
Apologies if some of my opinions seem controversial, I am giving honest feedback here. --sunstar nettalk 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for your feedback :) I think most of our icons don't have the "white inner shading". Some have. (I spotted  and , when  doesn't have it. I think we might have some kind of consistency problem here :). Guys, which one do you prefer? (I personally prefer the old fashioned ones) -- lucasbfr talk 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See two sections up from this one, where I raised the exact same point about the other ugly octagon icon. Now they both have shiny and non-shiny versions that are being inconsistently used – Qxz 00:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts on this project 

message: Hi. Sorry if this query might belong somewhere else?
How fast is too fast to progress through the UW templates? e.g. is it
wrong to go from  up to  in the course of a few minutes or an hour if a user keeps repeating the vandalism?
Can we clarify this kind of usage question somewhere? I couldn't seem to find an answer,
I don't know if this project page is the right place for it? Thanks. jhawkinson 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the level of the warning should be up to the user to decide. I personally start at around (uw2) but if the vandalism was severe or was intentional I might go straight to (uw3) for the first warning. Another template for blatant, obvious severe vandalism is the . Hope this helps! -- Hdt83  Chat 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably should be some guidance on the main WP:UTM page; however, I think the general idea is that there should be a fair amount of discretion left to the editor.  Personally, I follow level one to level two if there has only been one additional vandalistic edit or if bad faith is not absolutely clear.  If there have been many vandalistic edits in a short period of time, or if the type of vandalism is particularly nasty (racism, graphic sex etc), then I skip level 2.--Kubigula (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there should be a certain amount of discretion. For rapid, blatant  vandalism, particularly if prolific, I usually not only skip level 2 but progress through 3 and 4 fairly rapidly. Where the edits are at all arguable, or the user does only a single act and then stops at least temporarily, I progress in regular order. My view is that for blatant vandals -- vandals who are too busy trashing things to bother to read their messages -- the opportunity to be warned is all that is necessary and Wikipedia doessn't have to put the encyclopedia in jeapardy just because vandals may choose not to pay attention to their warnings. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, yes. Every time the offending person makes a malicious edit, you escalate the warnings. So if a person made a edit, you revert, and then they make another edit, you would immediatly move from uw-1 to uw2 and so on until uw-4 where you report them to AIV. Of course, you can skip levels if the vandalism was severe or blatant. Hopefully this answers your question. -- Hdt83  Chat 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, crystal clear! Perhaps someone wants to take a stab at making this clearer in the documentation? If not, I guess I'll give it a shot tomorrow. OK, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/Help:Introduction#Rate of warnings. Comments welcome. jhawkinson 04:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How fast is too fast? 

message: The question has just been asked above. The problem is that the orange You have new messages bar does not show up on a school IP. I know this because I saw somebody vandalizing while in the library and  posted a message to him but it doesn't show up. Any thoughts why? -- Hdt83  Chat 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean whats the point of placing warnings if they don't even notify the user???? -- Hdt83  Chat 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In every test that I've done, the warnings show up as they should.  One thing that could be possible  is that if you, while logged in, leave a warning on an anon IP but you are also on the ip but just logged in, your viewing of the page after leaving the warning might prevent the other user from seeing the notice.  Also, another user somewhere in the school could also be online and have seen the message indicator.  -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the yellow banner only shows up until you visit the talk page. That means that if the IP is shared, the banner might show up on an other computer and the vandal might never see it if the other user is fast to check his messages. -- lucasbfr talk 08:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had considred the fact that this was a school IP but on another computer at a friend's house, the New Messages bar does not show up when a warning is placed on his IP talk page. I think that something is wrong with the message bar so could someone test it out their self and look at the code for it? -- Hdt83  Chat 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a test of IP addresses I concluded that there was a bug with the New Messages Bar that is causing the bar to either not show up or show up and becomes stuck. See  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hdt83 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do Warnings show up on anonymous IPs? 

message: Hello Wikipeidians. I have made a proposal that would take care of the userbos issues and the general clutter of the Template namespace. Please see it here and make comments conserning it. Thank you for your time. SadanYagci 14:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have commented there Khukri 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I created the uw-coi to help speed processing of COI investigations.  None of the existing warnings fit the situation: a user creates an article about themselves or their company that isn't spam.  We simply need to warn the user that they have an apparent conflict of interest, and that they should use extreme caution if they want to make further edits to that article.  This is a single level warning.  If a user persists in editing, and creates a problem, we would use the standard user warning templates.  Could somebody please review this template and provide suggestions.  Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like it and think it is a needed addition to the pantheon of warnings.  My only suggestion is a small one - you currently have two wikilinks to NPOV and COI in the template.  I could actually almost live with that, as we really want the person to look at those two pages.  However, I think the better general practice is to only have one wikilink to each specfic page in a warning.--Kubigula (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got to say it is quite good really, and it fits a bloody great hole IMO. Good stuff. I moved your edit to the single issues table, becuase where you put it made warnings like legal and pinfo fall into the notices column. Don't worry I'm doing a mass tidy at the mo, and will sort it later. Khukri 13:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest - Template:Uw-coi 

message: I've tidied the single and multi level warning pages that shows actually what the templates give. 
As far as I can see here there are only a few outstanding warnings left that need the uw- treatment. This does not include image warnings which I'm going to start on fairly soon with the im- prefix, User:Ben's RfC templates which I've left a message with him about sorting out, or the welcome and sharedIP templates which need to be looked at fairly soon. Below I've listed the templatess that I think need quickly boshed out. If some of you wouldn't mind having a go.
* based on  
* based on 
* create
* based on 
* based on 
* based on  
* based on 
* based on  
* based on  
* based on 
* based on  
* based on  
* based on 
* based on 
* based on 
* based on 
* based on  
* based on  
* based on  
* mos warning similar to date & lang based on 
* about abuse etc in sandbox and to include 
* based on 
* yes you guessed it  
these two I dunno?
* isn't it tpv1 as mentioned on the overview page?
*
Cheers Khukri 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is uw-tpvx in my opinion. I don't think policy alteration deserves a template on its own, that would be a case where I would write a real message to explain it to the user. Were the ,  addressed? -- lucasbfr talk 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, you're right I didn't pay much attention to them as I thought that speedy's had there own redirects including the db- that was put on article space thought they'd done db-'s for user space. I'll remove them all tomorrow, as they're currently down as TfD. Show's how many people have noticed it since it's been there for 3 odd months ;) Khukri 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very boldly edited  so it gives the instructions of  if the Article parameter is given. Otherwise, the message remains the same. I know that makes a huge template, but myself was not going to use  because of the number of people putting copyvios in good faith (often their own work) and completely lost when they receive the notice, wondering what they can do. Tell me what you think. (The changes don't appear if you don't put the article parameter, so I put an example on the Template talk page -- lucasbfr talk 10:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only a few left 

message: I like to propose a new set of warnings. Recently, there was an IP creating redirect vandalism, by redirecting Wikipedia:Sandbox to my user page. I left him a note, which was:
 This is your last warning. The next time you redirect pages inappropriately, as you did by redirecting Wikipedia:Sandbox to User:AAA!, you will be blocked.
This set of warnings can be used when someone redirects pages innappropriately, such as redirecting "George W. Bush" to "Failure", or something. Anyone agree? --AAA! (AAAA) 10:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How creative :) but doesn't that just fall in the userpage vandalism category? FelisLeoTalk! 10:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really as the vandalism was within the sandbox. If you look above there is a warning I have to sort out for the sandbox, but that doesn't address all malicious redirects. Personally I think this is a good idea for a warning, but only as a single issue. As you say Felis, it is essentially vandalism, but you could start by issuing a one off template. AAA, take a copy of one of the single issues and paste your new text into there, not so harsh as your final warning above, but take a guidance from badcat, lang date etc. Then post it up or I'll do it for you over the weekend. Cheers Khukri 10:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm no good with words, so you can do it for me, if you like. But I might get started on a few. --AAA! (AAAA) 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I still think this warning can be covered by a single issue warning  and that any subsequent redirects are just given as vandalism warnings. Khukri 06:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait, did you say single issue? Gah, I misread your comment. Anyway, I don't know what to say for a single issue comment. Maybe you can do it? --AAA! (AAAA) 10:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Warnings proposal 

message: Do we have user warning templates for trolling? If not, should we create a series for it? (A good name could be  etc) --AAA! (AAAA) 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's not a bad idea, but my knee jerk reaction is that we don't need it.  Many (though perhaps not all) trolling situations can be dealt with by another template (the  or  series, for example).  Perhaps more importantly, I've become a big believer in the notion that the best way to deal with trolls is to largely ignore their attempts at provocation - don't feed them.--Kubigula (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feed the trolls! --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 12:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. --AAA! (AAAA) 14:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another proposition

message: I was recently looking at , and found out it uses more than one parser function. I was wondering if we should expand our parser functions in some of the uw- templates with the same one as that template, which is the following:

The main difference is we can also add an optional link to the reverted diff to the message. Some Wikipedia tools (such as VandalProof) and some bots (like AntiVandalBot) add a diff to their warning message, so why can't we? Should we do it? --AAA! (AAAA) 06:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, should we have people wasting their time copying and pasting the diff when they can hit save and continue vandal fighting? The article parameter is enough if you're going to do it manually. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 12:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parser Function expand 

message: This user is a member of theWikiProject on User Warnings.
I made this userbox for participants on this WikiProject. Do you like it? --AAA! (AAAA) 10:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had another, but this one looks better. What about putting it at Template:User Warning Project 2? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really nice one! I'm not sure this can be put on the Article space (I am a bit lost on the rules about userboxes). Anyway I put it on my page at . If someone is too lazy to put it elsewhere feel free to use this address :) -- lucasbfr talk 13:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template link (I've moved your user subpage, Lucasbfr, as I think it's better off in the template namespace). Anyway, since we now have 2 WikiProject userboxes, should we scrap one, or just keep them both? --AAA! (AAAA) 14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this one over the original, and I made that one. :) I think we should replace  with . EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grumpy ol bugga alert - I like the old one, just cos I don't like the brackets round the Info image and I don't like white user boxes. So If you don't mind I'll be I'll be happy in a club of my own and if you want to get rid of the box move it to my userspace. Cheers muchly Khukri 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrug* At the same time, leaving them both in place harms absolutely nobody. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: I have often ran into situations where an user needs to be warned about copyright infringement and that the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place. There don't appear to be any templates to directly communicate this. The  template, to the contrary, encourages them to spend time at rewriting the content or licensing it under the GFDL, which could be a violation of other Wikipedia policies, often NPOV, attribution and notability. -- intgr 14:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with you, the last sentence of the template states that the article needs to follow Wikipedia policies (in the case you provided a Article parameter, this templates changes a lot when you add this parameter). We could put this sentence in all cases maybe? (though I fear the template might get a bit too lengthy) If the article has nothing to do here in the first place, I would personally use the  series. -- lucasbfr talk 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like there are two separate issues: the copyright violation and a content issue (POV or whatever), and it's difficult to address multiple issues with a single template.  The copyvio is almost always the more serious issue, so I suggest using the copyright warning and adding a note, with an appropriate link to policy, about whatever the other concern may be.--Kubigula (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I now realize that the short version of the template is much better for cases like this. The template's behavior is, however, inconsistent with other user warnings that merely include an "as you did to article X" notice when a parameter is specified. Hence why I didn't even know about the short version of the template. The  template currently mentions  which is equivalent to the long version of uw-copyright. Any thoughts on improving this? -- intgr 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is an issue, but I didn't see how to reconciliate both behaviours and keep the number of templates to a reasonable amount. On the other hand, when you warn someone about an issue important enough to get him banned at second strike, I think you should explain to him what to do to contest or fix the problem if that was done in good faith. If it is vandalism, I personally use the  series. -- lucasbfr talk 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation and inappropriate content

message: User:Lobbuss has created the above warning with regard to language difference changes in Hebrew along a similar line to British English to American English. Question, even though this is English wikipedia these sorts of issues are going to arise from time to time, do we create one warning that wanrs against changing from one language variation to the other or are we going to have warnings for every variation of Kazakh for instance. I have personally have no probs with the warning itself though I have told the editor I feel it's a bit wordy, but what I think needs to be discussed is wher do we stand on if we have to create half a dozen warnings for essentially the same offence. Cheers Khukri 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there's a message above the template saying it's not consensus means that it shouldn't be used. Also, if we had this type of thing for every language, there would be so many. I also don't think this should be in the uw- space since it's not consensus, and since one of the points in the templates notice is that we've reviewed it, the fact that it's not consensus isn't good. The templates starting with uw- should be carefully reviewed and fit the guidelines of Wikipedia. This doesn't fit the guidelines. We created this new system to keep it clean, organized, and useful. Let's keep it that way. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|uw-heb}} 

message: The table in this section contradicts with table at the end of info of templates from this table. E.g. iv-canvass is not mentioned there. iv-english is placed in warnings here but in notices there, etc. I think that you know better mechanism to edit tables in templates info than edit each of them individually, so I don't dare to change them.--212.30.154.146 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:UTM / Single-level templates / warnings 

message: Anons quite frequently revert themselves immediately, leaving the version with the obscenity or the greeting to their girlfriend in the page history. This is still behavior that should be discouraged, if only because it is a cost for the servers and  is likely to grow into lasting vandalism. There used to be a template for this, but WP:UTM doesn't have it now. Where is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's .  It is listed at UTM, but the lists are getting a bit cluttered so it's getting harder to find stuff.--Kubigula (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please double-check. It isn't now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's under Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Single level templates, seventh one down under "Notices".  We have a bounty of UWs now, so the structure of UTM is not very intuitive anymore.--Kubigula (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed your link. You cannot have two anchors in one URL. :) -- intgr 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the warning on self-reverted vandalism?

message: There are currently several user warning templates that are not applicable to all situations one would expect them to be, due to their wording that assumes certain things. Two cases I can think of right now:
* The uw-npov# templates tell the user not to add "their personal commentary"; however, the NPOV policy also covers biased information that is favored by some larger entities, e.g. "official bios", which is arguably more important.
* The uw-spam# warnings tell the user not to add external links; however, excessive internal linking, creation of spam articles and various other behaviors (WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer) are also "spam", and there are no templates that directly address these cases.
Any thoughts on improving the coverage of the templates while not reducing their clarity? -- intgr 12:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates not applicable in all cases

message: Per further discussion with the IRC user I referred to in this proposal, I have decided to Withdraw this proposal, in favour of a better suggestion.  Further details will be posted here later. Thor Malmjursson 00:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone did create a template to address homophobic vandalism - .  There is a currently a discussion concerning this template at WT:UTM.--Kubigula (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template you refer to does not look strong enough for a warning on NPA.  I still think something like the one I propose would stand to get the message over a little harder.  Having the basic LGBT vandalism template doesn't come to cover NPA Attacks.  Thor Malmjursson 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a new UW Template 

message: Perhaps projects such as this promote feelings elitism  and specialness; it seems there may be better ways to keep Wikipedia orderly and civil without having such things as "Police" and "warnings". On Wikiversity they use "custodians", for example.  --Remi 22:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not arguing against the Wikiversity approach, but can you clarify why you think warnings promote elitism? Also note that most editors who have a legitimate interest in improving the encyclopedia rarely get warnings. And when they do, the first level of warnings do not say anything discouraging. -- intgr 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintended consequences... 

message: Would one of our resident admins mind spending a bit of time semi protecting the following templates that haven't been done yet. Don't worry putting the padlock symbol if you haven't got the time, I'll bosh through them with AWB and sort them all out once you're done.
* Template:uw-3block
* Template:uw-3rr1
* Template:uw-3rr2
* Template:uw-3rr3
* Template:uw-3rr4
* Template:uw-ablock
* Template:uw-advert1
* Template:uw-advert2
* Template:uw-advert3
* Template:uw-advert4
* Template:uw-dblock
* Template:uw-upload1
* Template:uw-upload2
* Template:uw-upload3
* Template:uw-upload4
* Template:uw-vblock
* Template:uw-aiv
* Template:uw-badcat
* Template:uw-bv
* Template:uw-c&pmove
* Template:uw-canvass
* Template:uw-coi
* Template:uw-copyright
* Template:uw-date
* Template:uw-editsummary
* Template:uw-english 
* Template:uw-homophobia
* Template:uw-italicize
* Template:uw-lang
* Template:uw-legal
* Template:uw-linking
* Template:uw-longterm
* Template:uw-minor
* Template:uw-multipleIPs
* Template:uw-pinfo
* Template:uw-preview
* Template:uw-racism
* Template:uw-selfrevert
* Template:uw-subst
* Template:uw-tilde
* Template:uw-warn
Cheers Khukri 12:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All semi-protected. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:58:26, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added all the s-prot padlock Khukri 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I missed off Template:Uw-2redirect, if you could do the honours again please. I've already added the icon. Thanks Khukri 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:28:59, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And this. --AAA! (AAAA) 05:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:24:26, 07 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection required