Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 5

message: I have noticed that many users are still using the old templates.  Some even list the old templates in their user page or a subpage thereof.  I have heard back from some of them on the matter.  One told me that he liked the old messages better.  How do we get them to switch? Will (Talk - contribs) 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By making them as easy to use as the old ones. It might just be me, but when I tried to use the new ones I couldn't make it work, so I just continued on with the old ones which have always gotten the point across I might add. Peace, -- The Hybrid 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  shortcut is a good one. It might help to have shorter versions of the other templates. Also as programs like Vandalproof are reprogrammed to use the new templates, they will become more common. I have found that most people are using the new templates when I post vandalism warnings and there has been recent past vandalism. How about a clear message about the new templates in the next edition of The Wikipedia Signpost? WJBscribe 01:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do users have to switch to the new templates? Don't get me wrong, I am warming up to the new ones.. but I don't see the big deal in keeping the old templates and just not promoting them anymore (they wouldn't be on display or recommended, etc., just ignored, sort of). -- Ned Scott 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is the best way I would like to see the old templates go. I don't want to force people to change, that's not what this is all about, I would like them to retire into obsolence gracefully with only a few die hards using them, as we perfect the new system. There is no rush to retire the old system, and as one of the instigators of the new system I personally will fight to keep the old system in place, not deleted, or redirected for the near future. It's too early, changes like this cannot be done over night. People don't like change if they don't see the benefits of it or if it creates more work for them. The work we can regulate by creating better redirects, and the benefits we just have to shout a wee bit louder about how the community is better of. Khukri -  12:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would prefer this, as I have gotten used to the old templates. I'm not too excited about these perfectly good templates being replaced with what is essentially the same stuff. -- The Hybrid 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's "vandalise" in British English, though. Not a spelling error. Heimstern Läufer 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't "get" us to switch. Why are you assuming that everyone should switch? If people like the new warnings, they'll switch, and if they don't, they don't have to. Of course, it doesn't help that every single script tool still uses the old ones. -Amark moo! 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I spoke to Betacommand a while back about this and he was looking at an update for VP, but I haven't spoken to him in a couple of weeks Khukri -  12:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For Twinkle, I have only the uw-warnings. →AzaToth 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users won't switch to new templates 

message: I use Voice of All's RC script for my RCP (I'm doing some now) and I use the tabs at the top of the edit page to add warinings to Talk pages so I don't have to remember the templates for each level but I've noticed that the tool is placing the old templates on pages. Is there something I need to do to change to the new templates? Sorry if this is elsewhere and I've missed it. Thanks --Farosdaughter 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably ask Voice of All. --WikiSlasher 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RC script templates 

message: I just noticed that the new grid doesn't contain a template explaining WP:NOR to new users.  There's  and its brethren, but sometimes there are cases when a user adds blatant original research, and sourcing isn't really the issue.  doesn't contain a link to the WP:NOR policy.  If we don't explain that to users, they're likely to return with "evidence" supporting their pet theories, without realizing that the "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" is just as problematic.
I found an example of this today, and came here to find the relevant template.  I ended up using the old , because nothing on the new grid really applied.  It would be great if we had something like that in the new system. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't got that far yet. There is already a  and  have a look here. What I'll most probably do is recommend  for Tfd make  a single issue template, and then as per the mos warnings, any further problems you use the unsourced warnings. Hope that helps. Khukri -  12:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original research warning? 

message: Created for the RFC folks:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
It's important to "subst:" these, and include the parameters marked "required" in the template usage notes: several features won't work right otherwise.
The "Concern" templates overlap with "user warning" templates in general topics, but here any escalation would be to an RFC -- rather than to stronger warnings and ultimately a block. That is, these address "gray area" issues, less severe than gross or blatant or obvious violations; where opinions might legitimately differ, and consensus might conceivably end up going either way. Also, these templates are not mandatory, just made available to anyone who needs or wants to use off-the-shelf boilerplate text rather than type in the text from scratch. People are still welcome to "roll their own".
However, feel free to borrow whatever you find helpful. Ben 09:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ben, can you add them to the new overview page please so I don't forget them. Cheers muchly. Khukri -  10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More notification templates 

message: I have noticed that the icon in many of the new templates like  is inline.  Unfortunately, it is taller than the text on my page.  I think we should make it float to improve readability.  Just a thought. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. Would it work with multiple templates on top of each other (especially short ones like ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Audacity (talk • contribs) 02:01, February 6, 2007  (UTC)
Maybe not directly.  However, if we put the whole thing into a div and make the margin-left a parameter expressed in em... Will (Talk - contribs) 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we make the icon turn off? Even if the majority never used the option, and the icon was on by default, I think it would be a nice option to have. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wooooaaaaaahhhhhhhhh there tiger, please read the talk pages on WP:UW before going anywhere near the div's. We've already been round the houses with tables and divs, and after shed loads of messing around, because no-one was happy, ended up getting rid of them. The reason the image was reduced from 30px to 25 was to try and minimise the space problem. Have a look at any template and look at the evolution it's gone through with this. Khukri -  15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is now possible to vertically align images by using the new image keywords baseline, sub, super, top, text-top, middle, bottom, and text-bottom.  This will generally only be useful for mixing images in with text: it cannot vertically position anything relative to a containing table cell or the like, only relative to text's em box.  The exact meanings of all the codes can be found at the World Wide Web Consortium's website (note that the percentage, length, and inherit properties are not available).  (Simetrical, , )
→Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it might work, does someone want to have a go, you can use this template here and copy one of the big templates in to give it a test. Khukri -  14:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a play in my sandbox - take a look. There is a 1 pixel difference in the line spacing of the baseline and text-bottom options. The text-bottom gives the larger, but I actually think that that one looks slightly better that the baseline option. If a decision to change is made, it is as simple as adding |baseline (or other option) to the image tag. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Yes please. --Quiddity 19:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The image can be placed lower, but it has an adverse effect on the line spacing - effectively the image must fit into the first line of text. I've added another example to show what I mean. I don't think that it is possible to acheive the appearance you want without floating the image, but it seems that this has already been discarded as an idea. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icon should float left 

message: I've made changes to several templates today (, , , , , , , , , , , and ) to improve wording and tone. Specifically, many came off with an accusatory or angry feel, which could easily leave the wrong impression on newcomers. Others were written overusing the first or second person. Part of those changes were made due to awkward phrasing, but I've also found that warnings are received better when there isn't a feeling of "look at what YOU did" (while still making clear what policy was violated). For example:
:Warning A: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions to Banana hammock. However, you should be aware that the edits that you made were in violation of our policies concerning inappropriate undergarments. Please be careful in your future edits. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction if you'd like some help with editing. Thank you.
:Warning B: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions to Banana hammock. However, Wikipedia policy concerning inappropriate undergarments does not allow us to accept edits of this nature. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction if you'd like some help with editing. Thank you.
The difference is subtle, but the latter warning doesn't have an air of finger pointing.
At any rate, I realize that some editors may have preferred to talk over changes of this nature beforehand, something that I didn't think about until I had made several. If I've stepped on any toes, I apologize. I'd be glad to talk over any changes that others find objectionable. Tijuana Brass 06:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. Personally I like the new wording of the level1 templates. However I personally think the level3 and 4 should have strong wording (you can be blocked after receiving one of those). I am speaking about , and generally about the "you will be blocked if you continue" wording at level3. -- lucasbfr talk 09:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the vandalism4im, I removed the "will not be tolerated" sentence, since it didn't appear in any of the other 4im warnings. Given that it's for use with someone who should already be well aware of both what they're doing and what it leads to, it felt over the top to me. Of course, if anybody disagrees and reverts, I won't start an edit war over it. Not looking to test out the own templates... Tijuana Brass 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording changes 

message: Questions's been raised about the vandal tools not having the new warnings Betacommand has kindly sorted Vandalproof 1.3 for us please see here. Khukri -  19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VP1.31 

message: How should thouse been talken cared about? →AzaToth 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a single issue would cover it plus it would usually get tagged with CSD A7 anyway. Khukri -  19:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AUTO]] 

message: To me, to be "good faith,"  must ask if the user forgot to login.  It doesn't. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see problems in phrasing it. For example, the warning can always be given to a registered member, and asking him to login wouldn't make much sense. How about In case you are the user himself, please login under that account and proceed to make the changes? Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good faith edits to own usr page while not logged in 

message: The assertion that someone would be blocked for using poor style and is otherwise a good editor is ludicrous.  I think  ought to be changed to reflect that it's possible that someone would be blocked for bad style rather than the standard "will be blocked" statement. i kan reed 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your opinion it's ludicrous. The problem is your assumption that a level3 warning would be directed at a good editor, which obviously will not happen...... straight off. It will be used mainly in conjunction with a number of other single issue warning templates, for example,  someone who continually changes colour to color when the it's about a British subject matter. There will also be a number of other templates to cover lang, date, royalty, etc. Khukri -  20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ludicrous in my opinion as well. Having one template to advise users how the Manual of Style works is good. Having a series of warnings for not following it is legalistic feature creep. If someone has taken the time to explain the problem to an editor and they refuse to follow the policy, it's time to switch to an alternative template, i.e. , since they're now making edits that they understand to be problematic. Tijuana Brass 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And on a side note, it's best to assume that they're all good editors, even the ones who get warnings. Many are people who are trying to make positive contributions that just aren't aware of our long list of policies. Careless warnings bite newcomers far too often when the editors who place them don't WP:AGF as well. Just a thought. Tijuana Brass 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's me arguing against 4im warnings. I give up ...... Khukri -  23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mos3 warning 

message: I suggest that we remove this series of templates. It's always been my belief that warning templates are primarily intended for use on the talk pages of new editors who may not be familiar with Wikipedia policy. Rather than having to spend time writing out an individual explanation to each new user, a template is used as a time-saving substitute. In the majority of cases, that's all well and good, since the average warning is used on the talk page of an editor who probably isn't aware of the relevant policies. As the warnings ramp up, they also provide a consistent, easy to find way of tracking an editor's past to determine any necessary administrative action. Great. That's a good thing.
However, some policies are a little more advanced, and WP:OWN is one of them. For starters, you'll rarely see a new, inexperienced editor exercising clear, sustained article ownership; it's a lot more likely that they'll constantly blank out or revert the parts they don't like, an activity which is covered under other policies. Ownership is a more complex issue, and it's one that you really only find among longer term editors who may already understand the policy well. It's insulting (and inappropriate) in a case like that to throw a vague warning template onto their talk page, and the idea of such templates escalating in levels seems silly to me.
It really comes down to assuming good faith on the part of the warning admins. If an editor has some time behind them and a history of positive contributions, they deserve a personal message on their talk page describing the issue at hand (which they're likely already aware of in some manner). If that fails, the proper course of action is to seek mediation, not add warning templates, which just tend to create bad feelings. Put yourself in the shoes of the warned user: if you had spent considerable effort maintaining an article that was important to you in a way you felt was fair and neutral, wouldn't it rub you the wrong way if you found  on your talk page rather than a more personal explanation?
I was inclined to start an MfD for these templates, but thought I'd bring it up here first to see what other editors have to say. Tijuana Brass 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These have only just been done by Squirepants101, thread just up the page here. Khukri -  23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:OWN warnings 

message: As noted here, there cannot be four opportunities for copyright infringement explicitly allowed for in the warning system. Copyright infringement is illegal and strictly forbidden, and allowing for it beyond two times after two warnings means that anyone using a four-tiered template system, rather than blocking the user or reporting the user to administrators, would not be taking appropriate action to prevent content from being posted to Wikipedia illegally, and having a four-tiered template system on this page would mean that Wikipedia is encouraging this tepid, inappropriate response. Petty vandalism is not illegal, so if people think four warnings are appropriate in some case of it, they can spend their time giving these four warnings, but there can be no system along the lines of "We will allow you to edit Wikipedia illegally four times, with our full knowledge and despite explicit warnings, before doing anything effective about it." There is a similar problem with the defamatory/libel warnings, which should be reduced, but at least in that case it is much more likely that the "defamation" posted is merely scurrilous accusations, not injurious libel. —Centrx→talk • 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, and thanks for responding. If you don't mind however the CV warning might get changed and have a few mods to bring it in line with alot of the other single issue template. Khukri -  20:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who ever did the warnings table with autobiography and 3rr in it (I can't be arsed looking through the history) looks good. And on that note wanna move the copyright stuff from above into there. I think it would be the perfect place for it. Khukri -  18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright infringement 

message: The new warning template  warns users that autobiographical articles may be sent to Articles for deletion. Shouldn't the actual warning be that the article may be speedily deleted? --Metropolitan90 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just copied from WP:AUTO, it probably need a rewrite. →AzaToth 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uw-autobiography 

message: Since 3RR is now a single template, shouldn't the original uw- templates be deleted or redirected? --TeckWizParlateContribs@ 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep Khukri -  08:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Ok, that seems ridiculous, but this is the only of the usual (vand test delete spam) level 1 templates that does not welcome the user (it is often the first message left on a talk page). Can anyone think of a wording that does not repeat Wikipedia twice? -- lucasbfr talk 09:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Welcome, and thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia" should be okay. We don't really need to say what site we're welcoming them to, since that should be obvious. Although I never understood why we're thanking them for disrupting articles in the first place. We never say "thanks for not experimenting with Wikipedia" to the new users who don't vandalize articles, so why do we show more appreciation to the ones that do? But I digress. Kafziel Talk 13:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More digression ... I actually don't mind the ones who put in something ridiculous or obscene & then take it out in the next edit. I've hand-written notes to them saying "thanks for experimenting, and for cleaning up after yourself; here's more info blah blah". --lquilter 20:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Kafziel - I think your proposed language is good.  I went ahead and made the change.--Kubigula (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Uw-test1}} does not welcome the user 

message: After I check a vandal's IP to determine whether it is a school IP or the like, I would like to record the information on the user's talk page. I can do this when the IP appears to be a shared or public IP, but there is no standard method for recording a registration that indicates "ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE." I would like to have a template for annotating an IPvandal's talk page to indicate that the IP is not shared. Essentially, this would be the opposite of Template:ISP, Template:SharedIPEDU, and similar templates.--orlady 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for indicating that an IP is non-portable (thus, probably not shared)? 

message: In case anyone is interested, I have created a polite template reminding users to use the English language in their talk page comments.  You can view and edit the template at Template:Useenglish.  —Psychonaut 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this not be merged into  or , both of these I have proposed to replace with a single issue template of simply . Cheers Khukri -  08:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be so merged, though the resulting template would probably be a bit wordy.  I think it's best to have separate templates for mainspace and discussion space issues.  Many users are aware that English is to be used in articles, but they believe it is OK to use other languages on talk pages (particularly user talk pages).  A warning specifically regarding use of foreign languages on talk pages, and drawing the user's attention to the talk page guidelines, would be less confusing. —Psychonaut 12:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a problem but the template name should reflect whether it is directed at a talk page or if it is directed at article space. These templates are not used that often, and we want to make it easier for editors to be able to pick the template off the shelf then read it, instead of reading half a dozen before he can post the correct one. I personally think we can be quite ambiguous with the warning and write it so that it covers both article and talk space, but just my opinion. Cheers Khukri -  13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Please use English" template 

message: Whatever happened to the templates relating to the revealing of private information (? Ekantik talk 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, it's still there, in fact it's even mentioned above in this talk page, but it's not displayed on the project page. However it will change in the next couple of weeks to a single issue template of pinfo or maybe uw-pinfo, depending on what everyone wants. Check over at the WP:UW and you'll see all the upcoming changes. Khukri -  08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, thanks for the clear explanation. Ekantik talk 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Information 

message: Discussion moved over from WP:UW as the two subjects are linked
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: As I said above, I think until we have a recourse with where you are going with the warnings, you can only issue one warning. With everything else we have an option, dispute resolution, blocks etc. But the edit summaries are a grey area, and as Jim said you can issue them to your blue in the face you won't get anywhere. In my opinion same as the deletion of user page warnings a policy has to be written and applied, before having that policy we cannot warn people for it, we can just give them a reminder of etiquette. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW,  and  are basically the same, with just a tiny bit more emphasis on 2. They basically AGF.   is what I initially proposed because of intentional attempts to mislead.  It seems to me that 1&2 could be combined into a single-level user warning (like etiquette); #3 is a type of disruptive editing.  They could be restructured to fit into other schemes that way.  Or, couldn't they be done like the WP:AGF warnings, with a N/A on level 4? --lquilter 05:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mmm... isn't adding a misleading summary a form of vandalism? I fear a bit the fact we are going to have a grid of 200 different templates in the end. That's just my 2 cents of course :) -- lucasbfr talk 08:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ambivalent about this.  I am concerned about template creep, but I also see value in providing a panorama of useful templates - so long as we are clear that no editor is required to use particular templates in specific situations.  I think I am leaning towards suggesting that we allow a reasonably wide variety of templates while also tweaking the intro to the project page to clarify that this is designed to assist editors rather than to mandate any particular messages.--Kubigula (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrongsummary warnings missing? 

message: Unfortunatly I'm 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. These aren't for discussion here but, please keep everything together on WP:UW 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 -  08:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this down the bottom to bring it to your attention again. Please get stuck in, I've added a columnn against all of the templates with my recommendations of what we should do. But we saw the screams of consternation when we implemented the last lot of changes, please get stuck. There's enough of you around with this project, that with all your view points we should get something that looks good. Otherwise I'll do it and you might not like that......again ;) ;Khukri 20:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed 

message: The templates , , , and  are all currently listed under "Other" when it appears as though they should belong with the standardized warning templates in the main box. Is there any reason for placing them down there? If it's because they don't fit the uw-template format, I'd like to suggest that they be moved to fit that naming convention. I'll gladly make the moves myself, I'd just like to check first. These templates were intended to serve as leveled warnings, not as general notifications. Hersfold (talk|work) 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test Article templates out of category 

message: Can the word merely be removed please - it implies that WP is at least partly a directory of links. BlueValour 01:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it kind of is. Many teachers in my school, for example, won't trust Wikipedia's information because of the capacity for anyone to edit it, but they will use it as a starting point to look for sources on the information. And articles are supposed to have a large number of "See Also: links, references, and other external links to credit their information. While we are supposed to provide actual information, we provide links too. Hersfold (talk|work) 04:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Uw-spam2 

message: Do we have a warning that deals with individuals using misleading edit summaries? I.e. they write in it "reverting vandalism" but  are instead introducing their own vandalism?--Crossmr 04:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some discussion of this above at WT:UTM#Wrongsummary warnings missing?.--Kubigula (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  improper edit summaries? 

message: I'm thinking we change the tables to have subst: at the beginning. I tend to use this fighting vandals, and really, you're meant to substitute it. What do people think? Scalene•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є• 10:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Along long time ago in a galaxy far away...... the page table was done like that albeit very briefly. But the problem is that the table gets cluttered and makes the page very large. I would suggest either create your own local toolbox, or use some of the scripted popup tools. Regards Khukri 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert to Subst: 

message: The templates should be like this:
 Your message here.
 Your message here.
rather than:
 Your message here.
 Your message here.
What do people think? --sunstar nettalk 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally a big too big. But if everyone else wants it lets do it across the board. Question do you think that the image size will be a detering factor for a vandal if they have already ignored potentially two other previous warnings? Khukri 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: Thanks for all the work done on the warnings by those who are doing it! Unfortunately, I can no longer find the warning template asking editors not to remove maintenance tags until the work is done. Any clues where I can find this one? --Kathy A. 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evil template leprechauns ran off with them, but in the mean time you can use either one of these  or . They will come back on the front page in one form or another, once we finish the second part of the review over at WP:UW, within the month....... I hope. Sorry for the inconvenience. Khukri 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks! (and darn those evil template leprechauns! *grin*) Kathy A. 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the warning about removing maintenance templates go? 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Add new redirect category. GracenotesT § 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect category 

message: Currently, , , , and rest of them don't exist. I think that we should do the following with them:
#On top of each page, have a word-for-word copy of the first item in that series. If  gets updated,  must get changed also. The reason is so that  can actually get used (like  vs ), but so that substitution works, but not substituting doesn't produce a mess of code.
#In the noinclude section, put a template similar to , except have it describe the whole series, not just one template therein.  should be very useful.
Does this sound sane? Finally, I would suggest that we create , and have it redirect to WP:UTM. This is a cross-namespace redirect, but I think that it's permissible. (Note: transcluding WP:UTM will now produce the multi-level warnings, due to a bold change of mine; I hope that this is ok.) GracenotesT § 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note:  exists as a redirect. GracenotesT § 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should all just be redirected. Any objections? --WikiSlasher 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. It would be a lot less complicated... although it would shatter my dreams of having a centralized page for an entire series. Oh well, so be it. GracenotesT § 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll go ahead and do it, but I'll need to create a category for uw- redirects first, since it seems like no one objects to my comments at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Add new redirect category, and the change isn't major anyway. GracenotesT § 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not-numbered user warning pages 

message: I propose to edit  and , to shorten the level2 a bit, and put the inappropriate links section on the level1. It doesn't make much sense explaining the policy at level 2 and not at level 1. Of course feel free to change it back. The text on level1 is now very long, though do you think we should remove the "Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion." sentence from it? (I am talking about level 1) -- lucasbfr talk 09:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam templates 

message: I just realised that spammers are going to be told about nofollow 3 times with the exact same sentence. A bit repetitive I think...we can either remove the mention of nofollow from all but one but then some won't get that specific warning and will not know about it. We could leave it like it is but then it will get repetitive on some talk pages, we can make a separate  template that gets added when the warning is issued the first time but I understand the objections to that ("template creep", not keeping it simple etc.), or we could make it an optional parameter at the risk of leaving pointless cluttering code in them. We could also of course just vary the wording a bit for each different template. --WikiSlasher 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: have created  and  now. Have made them dual level, and progress into deletion templates later. →AzaToth 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of maintenance tempaltes 

message: This may make the templates a bit more complicated than they already are, but I think that do the following change might be... beneficial.
:
to
:
The code itself is a bit longer, however: 61 to 102 characters.
Why might this code be good? Well, it would allow people to list multiple pages, and help fellow vandal-fighters to not confusedly give testers or vandals warnings about the same page. Having  equal to "Page" or "Page" yield "blah blah Page blah blah", and having it equal to "Kitten and Evil" would produce "blah blah Kitten and Evil blah blah".
See this comment for what motivated this idea. Any thoughts? It would require mass changes... but I've done those before for templates, 3 times :) GracenotesT § 16:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested code change 

message: Shouldn't they be called uw-create? Creation is a bit awkward. Xiner (talk, email) 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems on the renaming, alot of people find creation a bit awkward. Khukri 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and moved them, as well as changed links to them everywhere that they appears (except on userspace). "Create" is less awkward and shorter. GracenotesT § 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  uw-creation templates 

message: Am I overlooking them? --Ronz 03:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use  for now, since single-issue templates haven't been addressed fully (next on WP:UW's to-do list, and in process). GracenotesT § 03:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Shouldn't the old ones be left in this article while the new ones are being developed? --Ronz 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the content currently on WP:UTM is correct, but Template:TestTemplates has the old system. GracenotesT § 05:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the copyright violation templates? 

message: What about OR?  Do I simply treat that as Unsourced?  I don't know if the two are really the same thing or not. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I use  for original research (which is being subsumed by WP:ATT). Do you think that a template is needed that deals with OR specifically? GracenotesT § 04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do I appear to consider them the same thing? hrm. I don't, really. However, in the same spirit of the merge of WP:V and WP:OR into WP:ATT, perhaps  could cover both verifiability and original research. I could reword the series, or if anyone else wants to, they can go ahead! Does that sound fine? GracenotesT § 04:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's half a dozen OR warnings on the overview page at the moment, I'll create a single issue once we get somemore people proofing the work I've done. Cheers Khukri 08:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR? 

message: Guys, if you don't mind I'm going to edit the discussion box on the above template, to strengthen the please come to WT:UTM for discussing these templates part. I know a couple of you like myself have all these warnings in your watchlists but I'm concerned valid discussion points are getting missed as editors post to the individual template talk pages. I've re-directed a few of these topics over the last few dats. Cheers Khukri 08:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|WarningsUsage}} 

message: I've created a template to notify users when they've been reported to WP:AIV - would this be something we could use? Here's the template: User:Hersfold/Template:reported Ideas, comments? Hersfold (talk|work) 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use  in this situation. auburnpilot talk 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never really seen the point of those notices. They sound a bit like "I've gone and told teacher on you". By the time a user has been reported to WP:AIV for vandalism after a final warning, there's little they can do avoid a block (I suppose they could grovel and beg). If a temporary block results, the block template will include a warning to behave better once the block expires. If they get indef blocked the warning about future behaviour is even more pointless. I guess if some users like having them available they do no harm, I'm just not very convinced by them. WjBscribe 06:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Post-edit conflict, I do agree with WJBscribe. I don't think that it helps either editors, admins, or the vandals. It is very WP:BEANSish to say "You will be blocked", indicating that the vandal still has time left to vandalize, and if I were a vandal with little time left, I might even go to WP:AIV to vandalize (since the link is there) -- it would get me blocked quicker, but vandalism to WP:AIV is very disruptive, and should be avoided, really. Plus, AIV usually gets cleared pretty quickly nowadays; slow sometimes, but having two notices in 10 minutes that say the same thing, one retrospective and the other prospective, is superfluous. GracenotesT § 06:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've actually found them to be very beneficial. When I've used them, the vandal almost always stops his/her nonsense immediately, whereas if I simply wait for a block, the user often continues. I even maintain a modified version in my userspace here, which automatically includes a signature within the box. Anyone is of course free to use this version as well. auburnpilot talk 06:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok. I wasn't aware there was already a template in existence for this - I tend to agree with Auburn , though. If people hear that they are actually going to be acted against, then they tend to shut up and do as they're told. Since there's already a template, though, I'll request the deletion of my version. Thanks. Hersfold (talk|work) 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it works in practice, my theory means naught! GracenotesT § 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIV Report notification 

message: Is there any reason why the old templates are not redirected to the corresponding new templates?  (At least, the ones that clearly can be). —METS501 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is part of the next phase of WikiProject User Warnings, see their overview page. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting 

message: I created a set of warnings for inappropriate talk pages usage, as outlined in WP:TALK (for example, this). They use the abbreviation uw-chat, there are 4 levels of warnings. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I have a feeling that it should only go up to 3 levels (you can't really block someone for off-topic discussion; see also the uw-own, uw-mos, uw-agf series). Any thoughts about this? GracenotesT § 21:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to WP:TALK, users can be banned from editing for repeated violations of talk page rules. I wouldn't block someone for general off-topic discussions, but certian actions like attacks and some of the other things listed here could reslt in blocks. I wasn't really sure whether or not to take it to level 4, but as with some other warnings, I can't see level 3 or 4 being used too often. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. That's great, then. I've created  (base redirect page) GracenotesT § 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New warnings 

message: Khukri, the source code for  currently (23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I didn't really understand the #if things.  If you want to fix that problem, by all means, please do.  If not, I'll try to look into it when I get a chance.  Thanks again.--Falconus|Talk 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You'll have to forgive me, I understand now how the template works but didn't see it was just a place holder of sorts, but I still have no idea of how the meta tags work :/. Though if you guys think it's of benefit then as I said above ....Just my thoughts, if you wish to use all the parsers already embedded in the template then surround it by this one, it's getting to the point where it maybe quicker to write the template out by hand, or am I off track again? I'm glad I use some of the scripting tools as I'm sure I'll never remember the correct syntax. Khukri 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About meta templates 

message: Would it be alright to add a parameter to turn the icon off when using a given template? I'm fine with the stop hands and such, but the blue icon seems just silly to me.. My idea is that it would be on by default, but you could say, for example,  or maybe a shorter {{subst:Uw-test1|i=n]] and then have a text only message. Would this be acceptable? -- Ned Scott 09:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm personally not in favour, yet another thing tagged on to the warning etc, but if it makes people happier with the system then why not. Khukri 09:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no real need to remove it, IMO. Plus, with the images, it makes it easier to tell at a glance how many warnings someone has been issued. The IP addresses have a tendency to rack up a rather high count. Hersfold (talk|work) 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's many reasons to remove the image and little to no reason to not give the option to remove the images. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand why someone would not want to use icons in every message they use then there's probably no point in explaining it. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *shrug* I think it'd be fine, as long as it is (like you said) on by default. It'd allow for a bit of customizing for the templates, which I'd be okay with. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameter to turn icon off 

message: I have to object to the wording of .  It states that the "your edits could be considered vandalism."  If that had been the case, I would have used  instead.  No, I did see the edit as vandalism. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with you. How about "would likely be considered vandalism"? — SheeEttin {T/C} 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 4#Which tense for level2. I personally prefer "have been considered", less for reasons than for... well, personal preferences. GracenotesT § 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the level 2 warning is designed to be used where there is neither an assumption of good faith nor bad faith.  If bad faith is clear, then I think it's appropriate to skip ahead to level 3.  However, if we are making no assumption, then I don't think we should be unequivocally labelling the edit as vandalism.  That being said, I have no problem with "would likely be considered" language.  Whatever the consensus, I propose  and  also be changed to match.--Kubigula (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording problem in vandalism templates 

message: What do we do about edits where the editor inserted misleading information.  In the edit 21:47, February 22, 2007, the editor changed some fact such that it looked like the changes were correct (aside from the case).  Another example would be the various attempts by various users (which might be sock puppets or open proxies of a single editor) to change Bill O'Reilly's hometown from Levittown between and Westbury. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  series is for more bad faith incorrect additions, while the  series should be used for incorrect additions that were likely made in good faith. GracenotesT § 06:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings about inserting misleading information? 

message: {{User:Persian Poet Gal]] picked up the the above warning was autosigning and removed it, could one of our scripting guru's please check that it's OK now. How'd that one get forgotten about? Cheers Khukri 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|uw-block1}} 

message: I don't see a template for users that delete warnings from their user talk page.  I know there used to be one in the old system.  Am I missing it? SubSeven 10:56, 19 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. (when in doubt I personally check the user's page history) -- lucasbfr talk 11:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I should have gotten in on this conversation earlier, but I think we need a template about removing legitimate warnings.  If a vandal is removing warnings, someone warning them may not remember to check the history, and the vandal may get level one warnings multiple times, with each new editor thinking they've never vandalized prior to the warning.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree - You have to check histories everywhere else, it just adds time to the process when you have to check the talk page history too.  -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I use VandalProof, and it really slows things down too much to check page histories.  Actually, VandalProof tends to log me out when I do that.  Checking page histories before adding a simple warning can easily cut the amount of warning/reporting I can do in half.  I've found that it's usually the most persistent and destructive vandals who promptly remove the warnings. I also don't think there was consensus to remove these templates. From this discussion it seems to me there was a clear consensus that these templates are needed. These are some possible templates we could put back in: User:Sbrools/Sandbox 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you still have to check the talk page history to see that the vandal has removed the warning in the first place. So either no-one checks the history, no-one knows the templates are removed and the warning never gets placed, or people check the history, in which case they can see that user has removed warnings and can use the appropriate level warning. Therefore I don't see a need for this template. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User warning removal 

message: User:Esprit15d has added an optional header string to only the create templates. I've not read anything about this and I'm up for removing them until there's concensus to add them to all of them, or none of them. Cheers Khukri 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I attempted to make the header in  optional, all I did was break the header.  Something prevented the server from seeing the text as a section header.  It was rendered as though I had it in a <nowiki> block. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a general question but are we adding headers to templates now? or only single issue? Again sorry to harp on about this but if it's for one instance of a warning type it should be for all, i.e we create them for all single issue templates or none.  editors have to know what they are getting when they put a temaplte down on the page, and not get any surprises because of two headers or none etc. I'd like some feedback on the above create warnings, because those I know aren't supposed to have headers. and as I said I'm going to revert them unless someone tells me I being out of order.  Cheers Khukri 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I've reverted the headers. Khukri 10:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create templates 

message: I noticed that  includes the phrase "In case you are the user, please login under that account and proceed to make the changes."  This makes sense only if the user is an IP user.  When included on the talk page of a logged in user, we might as well state that we suspect one of the accounts is a sock puppet.  Can we get a way to turn that sentence off?  I don't know if we can do it automatically or not so we might need a parameter. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be very unlikely to leave a good faith warning on one editor editing the user page of another IMO. I can only really imagine along the lines of legitimate admin work, userboxes being changed or otherwise it's vandalism. Can you give some examples please? Cheers Khukri 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, in what context do you see it being issued? I can't recall seeing a logged in editor vandalising another editors page that would warrant a good faith warning, though I'm not saying it doesn't happen. IMO they'd usually have been pinged for something else before it got to user page vandalism and I can't think of any time when you'd issue a good faith warning. Usually it's straight out n out vandalism, with no need to assume good faith. Cheers Khukri 10:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording problem in {{tl|uw-upv1}} 

message: Both these templates refer to biographical articles, while biog2 and biog4 just refer to articles.  I just had to revert someone putting unsourced negative information about Nick Griffin and a third party into the British National Party article, and obviously the biog1 template doesn't make it clear that WP:BLP applies to all articles not just biographies.  Should the templates be changed to make this clear? One Night In Hackney 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the wording here. Further improvements are welcome. I don't entirely see the wording issue with , either... could you pontificate? GracenotesT § 03:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  states Please stop adding unreferenced controversial content to biographical articles (my emphasis), obviously it applies to all articles not just biographical ones.  Thanks. One Night In Hackney 10:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely made "biographical" refer to content rather than articles, which should be good enough, I hope. GracenotesT § 05:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording in {{tl|uw-biog1}} and {{tl|uw-biog3}} 

message: I created a new warning, , for warning users that create hoax articles.  I just realized that it overlaps a little with the  series, but that warning series is worded to warn against introducing misinformation into existing articles.  Thoughts on whether it should be kept as a separate warning? —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 08:15Z
:Sounds reasonable, can you add it to the overview? Cheers Khukri 10:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|uw-hoax}} 

message: We still have a lot of users preferring them.  I assume that one of these days, they will find their favorites gone. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether they prefer them or just don't know about the new ones is uncertain. —METS501 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend just leaving the old templates alone. No-one will complain then (well, somebody will, someone always does) --WikiSlasher 06:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never a truer word said in jest! I would eventually like to see all the re-directs put in place as I've listed at WP:UW/Overview but it's hit a brick wall and hasn't moved for quite a while. I can't see it moving in a hurry in the near future and I think it's going to be a case of we leave the old system hidden in a corner, we don't talk about it, mention it and hope one day it will go away. There are one or two editors who have been quite vociferous with their opinions around different forums on wikipedia on how they don't like the new system or certain parts of it. Though they are the exception rather than the rule their opinions should still be respected, and I'm beginning to think that no matter how harmonised we try and create this system it will never satisfy the needs of everyone. I've already said on WP:UW, I'm now up for scrapping the second phase of the harmonisation program, just tidy the system up so it's presentable and then put it back in place. In hindsight I think it was a bit of a pipedream to imagine a harmonised system, that followed standard guidelines etc, because in the end editors will always have a difference of opinion on what those guidelines should be. And as we have seen here on number of occasions no matter how much we communicate this to the rest of the community, there will always be an editor who is affronted because they have not been personally consulted on changes to their favorite template. So to cap it off I suggest people pick and chose the warnings they want from WP:UW/Overview, add them to the front page here. Then we wrap up the WP:UW project merging all the pertinant info again here, and the we have a one stop shop, here, for all things talk page template related. Cheers Khukri 10:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What will happen to the old templates? 

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 07:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:UsernameBlocked-vandal 

message: I suggest adding the parameters diff and oldid to the templates, for optional diff link, by adding following code after the link in the templates:

if you don't link such complex inline code, a simpler direct param could be used:

→AzaToth 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this -- the second, not the first, since it's much less cumbersome to copy a diff page's url than the revision number (although I might be incorrect about this). The only problem is that all spaces are cut out from #if statement arguments and results, so where would you suggest placing this chunk of code in, say, ? And now, AzaToth, you might want to check out my code suggestion above ;), unless anyone else understands it and is willing to comment. And if you need someone to implement this parameter, I'd be willing... I'm used to going through huge lists of user warning templates and making changes! GracenotesT § 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  diff