Template talk:Vblock

message: Removed courier. It is not necessary and is only useful if it is intended to make the user physically throw up. It is absolutely hideous and out of scale with everything around it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it from forcing a font to using the  attribute, which should work ok on most browsers. Please take a look and let me know if this still makes you physically throw up... Thanks! Owen× ☎ 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes it white inside the orange box from Firefox.  I didn't mind either way.  Wikibofh 23:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much much better. That is fine. Imagine that about three times the size and  s p r e a d  out and you have an idea what it was showing as. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: I've redesigned the template quite a bit, so I'll present the changes in list form:
* The template now uses a CSS div box instead of an HTML table, so that it no longer breaks formatted lists of warnings.
* The classes have been changed from "notice noprint" to the more appropriate "messagebox standard-talk". These classes also virtually eliminate the need for the extra inline CSS.
* The value for time now has the default value "a short period of time", which will be displayed if you forget to fill in the parameter.
* Following on previous discussions on this page, there's now an optional parameter for signatures. If you don't specify a value (ie, ), it will default to blank.
* Various aspects of the template have been changed a little to make the template slightly less massive.
* The template has been add to :Category:User warning templates.
I think that just about covers everything. Any critiques, complaints, suggestions, or questions? // Pathoschild 21:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redesign

message: Surely you'd have to look at a user's edit history to see that it was that user that removed the template that has the warning on anyway? Given you'd have to do this anyway, what's wrong with my initial suggestion of changing the template so that it does not have the "do not remove or else" and relying on edit summaries in the history? jguk 22:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like your beef is with the policy rather than with the template. Currently, removing other's warnings from a talk page is considered vandalism, and most admins would act on that. I think it is only fair to warn a vandal of this policy rather than just surprise him with an extention of the block. However, if the current wording comes across as too hostile, I'd be happy to find a more pleasant version, as long as the basic message is there. Vandals—especially anonymous ones—do not have the right to blank their talk page and hide warnings issued against them in the midst of their vandalism spree. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another thought

message: Could an admin add  to the template (obviously in a <noinclude> section)? Test0-Test2 have them, and it'd be nice to have this sort of standardized (though this is a lot less of an issue for admin-only templates, as they probably know to subst it). EVula 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, me! I'll be happy to do that for you... er, me.. er.. crap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL --WikiSlasher 07:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to template 

message: The documentation says to use "".  Shouldn't that be ""? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Geniac 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  docs wrong?