Template talk:Test5

message: It would be very useful if the addition of , etc. were automatically to put the User in a category of "Vandals to be tracked", so as to generate a list of these people. What happens often enough is that the warnings are ineffectual.
I tried doing this, on the model of , but it doesn't seem to work, maybe because these are User Talk pages that  is applied to. Is this worth pursuing?
I'm posting this here as well to get maximum visibility, but please centralize responses to the Test Template Talk page.Bill 13:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using these templates to track vandals 

message: I added a Hr and bold text to make the test distinguishable from other text on the discussion page, as well as a count for easy reference of the last  used.
Example:
----Blocked
∞Who?¿? 06:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header 

message: You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.
(left by 132.205.64.91)
:No. The simple, image-free message is best. Also, the image is already present at test4. — Dan | Talk 01:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep images out of this template please. Rhobite 02:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This template as it stands looks amateurish. By all means include a visual impact in this currently extremely ugly dreary message. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better looking? 

message: I linked wp:blocking_policy and wp:vandalism. I seem to remember those links being there in the past. Apologies if removal was discussed somewhere and I missed it. –Hajor 16:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Should we remind people that if they want to reply they can still edit their own talk here, or would we rather not give them any ideas and leave the talk-editing for 3RR-vios and such? --fvw* 20:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remind people they can still either their own talk? 

message: This template in its current format is plain, dull, ugly and fails to communicate in any effective manner. Why do some people prefer the look that suggests it was scribbled on the back of an envellope? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional design

message: I have change the wording from 'you are welcome to come back' to 'you may come back', because the former is far too inviting.  Others have observed this issue also, see User:Hephaestos.  Ingoolemo talk 06:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, no.  Anyone who's qualified to use this template likely knows that it should be subst:'ed, so vandalism shouldn't be a huge deal.  JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Doesn't work since it puts the account name of the block individual into the wrong box.Geni 03:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we even have it? I would seem to encourage them to come back that much faster. - RoyBoy 800 18:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Click here

message: I've added an optional parameter to this template to make the image optional.  For those that don't want to include the image with the block warning, type , which produces:
*You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires.
The default behaviour via  will be to include the image as follows:
 You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires.
I didn't want to do anything more fancy that would increase server load, but if you can think of a way of improving this, please do so.  Also please let me know if you find any problems.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You likely have a point, but for those that don't want to include an image due either to dislike of the image or server and/or client load concerns (and it appears that there were several people reverting the addition of the image), this gives them the option not to include it.  The default behaviour is to include the image, so the block message will still contain the image except for people who explicitly specify it.  JYolkowski // talk 16:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image on this template 

message: I always have a problem with the image on this running up against images from test4 or others, and making it look bad, and propose adding a subst'd  space at the top of this template.  Any thaughts? — xaosflux Talk 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noones has opposed, I've added this spacing, checked several talk apges that had not been subst'd and they all appear well. — xaosflux Talk 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing 

message: Instead of "blatant," the tag should use "flagrant." Usage note at . -- Win777 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word choice 

message: :lb:Template:Test5
--Briséis 12:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lb:Template:Test5--Jusjih 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: the lb: link has been added to the template. — xaosflux Talk 14:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lb equiv 

message: :lb:Template:Test5--Jusjih 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the lb: link has been added to the template. — xaosflux Talk 14:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  zh equiv 

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. EVula 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Pathoschild. EVula 18:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to template 

message: There are separate templates for that...  and . Plus, "personal attacks" are not considered "vandalism". – flamurai (t) 22:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template includes disruption and privacy violations, and I thought they were separate to vandalism.  I added it because vandals sometimes throw a few personal attacks about in between vandalism.  If you don't think it should be there, I don't mind if you remove it.  JDtalk 23:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why add personal attacks? 

message: Does this template actually block a user? If they have the previous templates, and i post the 5th one, would they actually be blocked or not until an admin or some sort of bot came around to handle it? Cantras 06:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just another notification template. Admins post it after the actual blocking process, which is usually requested at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Femto 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Can this be used by non-sysops? Please tell me. I really need to know.Hondasaregood 15:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no real point considering only sysops can block others. After a vandal has gone past test4 or bv, there's no point issuing warnings at that point. You should report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and continue reverting all their edits until they are blocked. --   Netsnipe  ►  15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the situation where a user has been blocked, but the administrator has omitted to put anything on the user's talk page to tell them theyt've been blocked? – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OF course in that situation; yes but it isn't really necessary. ~ Arjun 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Test5/doc subpage, as recommended in Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to:
You have been  blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated.




Thanks. +mwtoews 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Luna Santin 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved documentation

message: ...if you add the following sentence after this warning:
:"If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text ."
zero » 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cbrown1023 talk 16:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is more applicable... 

message: May someone update the icon to this one: so it better matches the other block templates? -- Hdt83  Chat 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. This is the image that AzaToth's new block templates use. Shouldn't the background of this be tan rather than white? For example see  CMummert · talk 02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: done. CMummert · talk 02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You're mistaken.  The  template has not been (and should not be) changed.  These older templates are supposed to match each other, not the new templates.  They continue to co-exist because there is no consensus to abandon the original style in favor of the new one.  —David Levy 19:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought you were referring to the uw-series of warnings: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Usual_warnings. In that case never mind unless someone disagrees? -- Hdt83  Chat 19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was changed, and reverted.  Personally, I think we might as well change all the icons, but I'll respect the dissent for six months or so before pushing for a change  The uw- templates are very new. CMummert · talk 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're also very ugly (IMHO).  Until that's fixed, you'll never change the minds of those of us who prefer the traditional templates.  —David Levy 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's postpone this discussion for a long time. CMummert · talk 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the X icon in the other old block messages as well, until a consensus on wether to change or not is reached.HondasareGOOD (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update icon 

message: Could someone move this template to  (currently a redirect)? Test5 seems like a very illogical name to me, it is unrelated to  (it informs a user about a block for any reason, not just for test vandalism). SalaSkan 18:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... if you take a look at the old user warnings table, Foo5 tends to be the "You've been blocked" level for most of them. I'd somewhat hesitate to change that without a larger discussion. As another option, the new template system has been in place for quite some time, now, and perhaps the time has come to redirect the old warning set to the new one. Either way, this should probably be discussed (if you just wanted to move this template, here is fine, if people don't show up or if you wanted more changes, there's always the [[WP:PUMP|village pump). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Should repeated violations of copyright infringement be mentioned in the template?-Wafulz 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, though there are more specific tags for that. — xaosflux Talk 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright infringement 

message: Can we change the icon from  to ? The old one is duller—not quite the thing for a "Warning: You've been blocked" notice. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 17:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I recall for sure, but I seem to remember some arguments over this sort of thing (whether to have a shiny image, also whether to have an image at all), mainly concerning a diversity of opinion as to whether glitzy block templates encourage people who're looking for a reaction -- I haven't kept track of things too closely, though. For what it's worth, other related block templates I've checked (, , , and so on) seem to use the image you've linked. Although  looks to match the currently used image, here. If we take consistency to imply consensus (which doesn't seem like a bad approach), the shiny image appears more frequently used. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This change has been request, fulfilled, and reverted previously (see template history). Consensus will be needed before this chagne is made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change 

message: Append |alt=|link= inside the image parsing to make the file space harder for vandals to find. mechamind90 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I believe the link is necessary to provide attribution for the image. The link= trick can only be used with images in the public domain. Anyhow the image itself is protected so I don't think vandalism is a concern? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To reduce odds of image vandalism 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Redirecting older block templates to newer ones for a discussion on redirecting this template to . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect discussion

message: At WT:UW#Redirect test5 to uw-block — MusikAnimal talk 17:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another redirect proposal 

message: Please add the RfD template UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 19:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 18 April 2017