Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archives/2006/01

message: I discovered the existence of this category of warnings in a template deletion vote, and realized that I object to them on principle.  These messages are apparently designed to be placed on user talk pages—which to my mind is somewhat the equivalent of email—a place where one person is writing another person.  It's my sense that automating these messages is going to lead to a mechanistic and alienating experience for those who receive them.
The cases being specifically discussed in TFD were related to regal styles, a la Template:Styles3.  The scenario I found in my head was: "An enthusiast of British royalty makes several well-intentioned edits to an article, one of which was to add the honorific styles".  I think the existence of a boilerplate response encourages a dehumanizing attitude in dealing with such a person which might overlook the positive changes he has made.  It would likely make those posting the warning to not feel the need to browse the person's user page in order to preface their remarks with a friendly and contextually-appropriate greeting.
Right now wiki is a very uniform medium, and there is no question that getting more structure and standardization to information is good.  Yet I really think the user-to-user communication is a different endeavor from the rest of the encyclopedia, and different rules should apply.  We have the power to link and reference, which is an excellent tool that can be employed in giving someone a useful heads-up to policy.  But I'm concerned that in the sensitive domain of "warning" people that a wall-of-templates isn't healthy.  It's sort of like "talk to the hand" (metaphorically, if not literally using the graphic).  Metaeducation 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I understand that administrating wikipedia is a complex and time-consuming process.  Yet though no one complains about the welcome templates, does anyone particularly praise them?  Are there metrics to support that these are bringing people in the fold, relative to what a personal response might do?  I'm sure these warnings "work" at some level, to the perception of those who employ them—from intimidation if nothing else.  And surely the types of people who would be reading policy pages (such as this one) will carry bias to say they must therefore be good.  Which is why I'm trying to suggest a broader perspective on the issue, based at least a bit on principle (one other than "let's save time"). Metaeducation 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't do a lot of welcome, and I have had at least one person be very thankful.  Those on the welcoming committee might know better.  I'm not sure how we would go about generating metrics.  The warnings "work" in that they provide a process/audit trail to allow everyone to see that those thare are the most accountable (administrators, and yes I generally believe that) are being fair at trying to let people know what behaviour is expected.  Also, my concern isn't "let's save time" but more, "let's use time effeciently".  I spend more time on vandalism duty than "positive contributions" (and in all fairness, that is a personal choice) but, wikihours are a finite resource, we should try to choose wisely how we want them spent.  As an aside, I welcome the broader perspective and philosphical/principle questions.  Thanks for bringing them here.  Wikibofh(talk) 00:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Glad you appreciate the merit of the question, thanks for saying so.  I realize that vandalism is a separate issue, and in fact the vote on TFD (link) is about that precise distinction—someone putting in full royal titles does not count as a vandal and might deserve the greater caution/courtesy I describe.  As this arose in the voting on this particular set of templates, it doubtless will arise again.  Maybe there should be some stated guidance to curb the tendency to make a large number of these template user warnings, or to tag them with enough information so the affected users can feel they are less...automatic?  Metaeducation 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * How about an optional field for free text that will show up inside boxes?  For instance when I did this block with test5-n, I went back to personalize it, and there seemed to be a positive impact.  I think the templates are too important and useful not to use, but now that optional parameters are possible, perhaps we could set that up to personalize them a little?  Wikibofh(talk) 17:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undesirability of Stock Responses Between Humans 

message: Hi, I had been following this project for some time as it is on my watchlist. Today, I had to create a new template, namely, :Template:Test0-n as I increasingly see the need for it on my RC patrol. As my particpation is limited in this project, I request you to review the template, standardise it and its talk page. TIA, --Gurubrahma 14:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  creation of a new template 

message: So currently there is  and  and I found }} which realy doesnt do much, there needs to be one for repeat violators of no source/license images... --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image source/license warnings 

message: Regarding the proto-template : This template is a bad idea. Messages left on user talk pages should be messages to that user (or from him/her). This template is a reminder to other editors, which is likely to be confusing to the owner of the talk page who may think (legitimately) that it is a message for him/her. Also, this template sends the wrong message, contrary to the ideals of WP:BITE and Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. This template sends the message that "We know you are a vandal, and will never be anything but a vandal, so we've added this permanent control panel to your talk page to make it easier to punish you." This will not encourage people to give up vandalism. Comments appreciated. TfD forthcoming otherwise.--Srleffler 00:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template doesn't send the wrong message, since it's used when warnings have become numerous enough to be placed in a numerical list. The template is much less of a problem under Please do not bite the newcomers than the user warnings themselves are. Regarding Do not insult the vandals, I fail to see how it applies to a talk page filled with numerous user warnings. If the user becomes a positive contributor, the template would be removed or archived along with the warnings.  // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: S/Wnote

message: I couldn't find this project on the Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects.... Did I miss it somewhere? --AySz88^-^ 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the WikiProject to the list. It seems I forgot to do that; thanks for pointing it out. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to list 

message: Is there any limitation on who can use these, and which ones they can use?  [...]  Are there no safeguards against abuse of these warnings?  Or can anybody use them to harrass anybody?
Davidkevin 07:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no restriction on who can use them.  It does not look to me as if you are not being harrassed, you are merely part of an edit war.  This is not personal.  Others are now looking at the situation, and it will eventually be resolved by consensus, in the usual way.  I removed the personal attack from the above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 10:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Can Use These? 

message: How about non warnings like template:test1-n sectioned under the name of the article used as example, the use of non -n templates depreciated, the adding of numbered lists prefix # to warning and blocked templates and put under a single user talk page section "Warnings"?:
-- Jeandré, 2006-02-27t06:42z
: The 'non-warnings' belong with the rest of the warnings in my opinion, since they're low-level warnings. The addition of list syntax to templates was rejected by several users when it was attempted (see my archive), but is regularly formatted manually on talk pages. Deprecating the *-n templates and codifying the 'warnings' section are both already on my unwritten to-do list. :) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 08:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the WikiProject has partnered with the WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation for organisation of talk pages. This would be best discussed there. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 05:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning.

message: Hi there, I was just surfing about and just found your excellent little wikiproject. I've long thought that we need to standardize the templates and figure out a better way to keep track of vandals and their prior histories. The latter can be a bit hard to do in the heat of RC patrol, and I daresay your  makes this a little easier (since it has all those links within easy reach) and reminds other patrollers to subst. I have made one change to the template which I hope was not being entirely too bold :). I changed the link from kate's wonderful tool to interiot's even more wonderful tool: interiot's provides easy links to different areas of contribs, which presumably is the main reason anyone on RC patrol would want to use an editcount tool. Are there any violent objections? :) If no, all's well then. ENCEPHALON 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Header" template 

message: has good information, but I find it too much to have it transcluded in every user warning template (of which there is a huge number).
See for example the page of . The text of {Spam2} is very short, but look at how much stuff there is around it. I understand that it is not included when subst'ed, but nevertheless, does it really belong there?
How about incuding  only in :Category: User warning templates, at the very top, instead of each and every template in that category? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those notices weren't placed by this WikiProject, though it'd be a good idea to place those only on the user warning category page and/or the index of test templates. Feel free to discuss with the user or users placing them, or I'll do so sometime. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is {TestTemplatesNotice} needed in all user warning templates? 

message: This is a new template I just made. It is used to notify users who are blocked because their usernames are too similar to existing users. Please let me what you think. --Ixfd64 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine; however, contacting an admin does not help because the username is any way unacceptable and at best the user can request a WP:CHU from a bureaucrat. So, it should probly ask the user to contact a bureaucrat. --Gurubrahma 06:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|UsernameBlock-impostor}} 

message: This template notifies users that their accounts have been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. However, this template also provides instructions on how to appeal a block. --Ixfd64 04:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be best to add instructions on appealing blocks to the standardised templates instead of creating a new one. I'll do so later. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 10:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new template - {{tl|block-appeal}} 

message: I recently worked on a new block template - you can see it here - and I added a bunch of new features that I think are very useful.  It allows you to say how long the block will last for as well as the page that was vandalized that caused the block.  It also signs your name and time automatically and provides a link to the block log so the user or other admins can easily see the block log of that user.  I see no reason why all of the block templates shouldn't have at least these last two features as they are very useful.  The auto-signing feature only works when the template is subst'ed; luckily, that's how they're supposed to be used.  Check it out and tell me what you think.  --Cyde Weys 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure it is a good idea to leave a link to the block log. The message on talkpage is intended for the user of that IP - messages to other admins etc. via link to block log would be very confusing. Block log can be easily accessed by admins by going to the user contribs page. Btw, you may want to add instructions for usage at the talkpage of the template. --Gurubrahma 13:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't a good idea for a user to see their own block log?  Most anonymous vandals/newbies don't know how to check it themselves.  And having to go to user contributions (a button in the toolbox) before being able to see the block log is kind of inconvenient.  --Cyde Weys 21:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrading all block templates? 

message: May I ask: what happened to the idea of standardizing these things?  It's been months, and the user warning templates are still wildly inconsistent.
I would suggest something like this.  We would have a number of warn categories (remove, blank, nonsense, false, libel, move-nonsense, move-uncommon, pov, censor, civil, attack, remove-warn, remove-dispute, legal, spam, 3rr, nn), and for each one, there would be a set of templates.  These templates could universally follow the progression , with 0 being a welcome message (à la Template:Welcomenpov) and 3 being a final warning.  It would take me (or anyone else) probably a day or two to write up all the hundred or so templates for examination, discussion, and consensus-building, and we could have a much more consistent template system within a few weeks.
Is there some reason this hasn't happened?  Should I just make the templates and put them up for discussion?  Are there any objections to this standardization?  One need only look at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Grid of warnings to see what a mess this currently is, with rampant redundancy, omissions, and confusion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a brief attempt to standardise the current templates themselves, which was opposed as it slightly modified usage. The current strategy is to create a parallel system of standardised warnings which follow the template coding standards. It hasn't happened yet because I was more or less the single active member of the WikiProject, and I temporarily focused on other tasks. I'll eventually create the parallel system; feel free to do so yourself if you wish. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 10:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So where's standardization? 

message: Hi, I just created .  It looks like this:
* Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or write things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at :pagenamehere. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you.
I hope it can prove useful to the WikiProject.--M@rēino 00:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed template 

message: I've noticed that some administrators will block suspicious accounts with summaries like "please contact an administrator for verification purposes" and such. I've made the template  that would hopefully be some help. --Ixfd64 01:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new template for blocked users needing verification 

message: Granted I'm not a fan of these in the first place, but I object to "This is your last warning... if... you will be blocked..." for slightly different reasons: it is sometimes not followed up, and if it is, it is with a temporary block. This usually results in several "last" warnings. It is a lame ultimatum with little credibility. I'm not advocating remedying this by making blocks permanent, of course. -Dan 17:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last warning 

message: Sometimes, we would see an anonymous user editing a user page. Often, due to the nature of the edits, it is hard to tell whether the user is vandalizing or editing their own user page while not logged in. I made this template for asking users to log in before editing their user page. --Ixfd64 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new template - {{tl|tpv}} 

message: I've been playing with a little template for a specific kind of copyright violation I've seen several instances of: the addition of song lyrics to an article about a band/musician/song/etc.  They most often seem to be a good-faith attempt to improve the article, made without a proper understanding of copyright and Wikipedia's policies.  Therefore, I first wrote a little blurb (intended to be friendly) for my own use, notifying the editor in question that the lyrics have been removed and pointing them to pages that would help explain why.  What I'm wondering now is if this would be something useful for other editors.  
As a Wiki-newbie, I defer to those with more wisdom and experience.  :)  Is this something "worth" a template?  And if it is, any input on wording, links, etc., is more than welcome.
The (very beta) version of the template can be found at User:PaperTruths/copyvio-lyrics, and the implementation can be found at User:PaperTruths/White_space#Templates.   Thanks for your time!  —PaperTruths (Talk) 08:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template proposal (copyvio)

message: Hi. I've just created this template in response to a recent collateral damage incident with User:202.6.138.34. I haven't created a template before so I'd appreciate any input, including whether we already have a template for this. Thanks TigerShark 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:CDamage]]

message: Hi, I have just created this template to warn new users away from creating nonsense articles. If there is consensus here that it will be useful, I will move it to a permanent template. --Richard0612 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article Template 

message: I've made an alternative version of test4. The original test4 could be misleading, as it does not guarantee that the warned vandal will be blocked. This is especially true when no administrators are online. --Ixfd64 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, I have been wondering about the accuracy of  for a while. For people who like the test-n templates[such as myself], I have created . Good work on the template! ><Richard0612 UW 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now working on similar versions for other final/only warning templates, you are welcome to lend a hand. Note: all such templates should have -alt added to them for clarity. ><Richard0612 UW 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I expanded it to be even more explicit. Just zis Guy you know? 16:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|test4alt}} - alternative version of {{tl|test4}} 

message: I know of a way to eliminate the -n warnings while still allowing users to optionally put the page in. It is based on "ParserFunctions." These use system templates for if and other operations, see WP:PF. The code for test will then be:
If you will put in the page that was reverted in the parameter, it will display the text, otherwise, it won't. The function will still be displayed in edit mode when it is subst'ed on the page, but it will still work. While it is wikicode, it is inside the warning, so it is not harmful (the warning itself should not be edited anyway). The templates will continue to work as before, but there will be no reason to remember the -n series (which will be converted to redirects), so putting warnings on user talk pages will be easier. Any comments? Polonium 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a discussion about this is starting up here: Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#-n.2C_AgainThe problems I've cited are the fact that most CV tools exclusively use the named templates and that this change would create more code bloat on the site. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PF|ParserFunctions]] 

message: Hi,
I'd been looking around for quite a while, for a policy on User page templates. Having not found one, I'd done a few edits of my own to the templates to try and bring some harmonisation. In the last couple of weeks I'd created this here with a view to bringing everything together. I'd got to the next part of getting ideas and someone pointed me in your direction. Well anyway, is there anyway I can help? Regards Khukri  (talk . contribs) 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK that was a waste of effort 

message: I am happy to see that we have different groups beginning discussion on cleaning up the warning system. Right now, I am using this system and find it useful:
==Editing Concerns==
# ~~~~ 
# ~~~~ 
# ~~~~ 
# ~~~~ 
This is how it looks in action: . I particularly like to make it clear to other users in the edit summary which test we are at, i.e. "test 1", "test 2" and so forth. I think it would be great if whatever system develops does something along these lines. It is especially helpful when we run into users who try to blank their warnings. Thanks to y'all for taking initiative in this. -Kukini 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My current approach 

message: Apparently some users think that usernames with non-latin chars in their names can be blocked for this without discussion.  The only evidence I have of this is the relevant clause in Template:Usernameblocked.  I left a note on the talk page there, and hope that clause can be removed.  +sj + 04:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Username policy, which states: Names with non-Latin characters: Unfortunately, most of your fellow editors will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts. Many of them will also be additionally burdened, as such names may be displayed for them only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or worse, nonsense or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is usually written in a non-Latin script, please consider transliterating it to avoid confusion, and allow easier access to your talk page by typing your name in the search field or URL bar. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-latin username blocking 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: See User_talk:193.201.135.244; at the footer of the page is a new idea for a template encouraging anons to create accounts. I would be interested to hear your opinions. --SunStar Net 11:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would be wary of mixed message templates and would most probably use two different templates. Start with a welcome template to act as a header, and then give a good faith warning message. Then see where they go from that. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: I just whipped up a userbox for participants; see .
I swear I'll make actual contributions to the project, but that was a pretty quick and easy thing to do. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Please use this talk page for any alarm harmonisation ideas. Regards Khukri  (talk . contribs) 12:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good, I like the standard image Idea. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page usage

message: What a lot of effort you've put into this!!!!
It looks great; I have to say that I wholeheartedly support your ideas.
Before your date with the wine, I'd suggest that you make the others working on this problem aware of your ideas.  I especially like the use of images (and I favor yours to any others I've seen suggested); that will make the warnings seem more serious, and as people are visual learners, after all.
Anyway, let me know if you need me for anything else! :) Srose (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What an undertaking! :) 

message: Before we can get any further with hammering out the details listed below, I believe we should obtain some form of concensus, as to the templates structure. Currently there are two ideas on the board 
*We leave the templates as is i.e there are levels 0 - 4 of increasing strength warnings, followed by level 5 - 6 for the block. With this we identify those that are blockable and make sure they have correctly worded 0 - 6 warnings, and if they are not blockable then 0 - 3 levels only. 
*The other option as per the guidelines is to have a level 0 - 3 warning for blockable offences followed by a generic block warning. This is on the premise that having 1 less level of warning removes some of the ambiguity, and that it is not necessary to have a block for each type of warning. This is because any editor being blocked will have already had previous warnings, and will have been informed of his/her offences. For non blockable offences there will only be warnings level 0-2 
Note: I use the word warnings alot which I realise does not instantly AGF, but for the purposes of this project warnings / messages are interchangeable. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 09:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure Vote

message: Levels 0 - 3 & then use S-blocks
As per guidelines
# I prefer levels 0–3 recommended by the template coding documentation. This maintains simplicity and ensures that abusive users are not given too much leeway while allowing a flexible range of tones and severity. All blocks should be handled with , , and . —[admin] Pathoschild 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardised levels

message: Standardise template name syntax
:no capitals
:no spaces
:all templates requiring additional info get the -n suffix, currently missing in a large amount.
::*or remove the -n and add to all templates  Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax

message: All templates must have same look and feel, if bold text highlights a word in one template, bold in all. 
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content syntax

message: Number of warning categories only have for example warnings 2 - 3. Create the spectrum of warnings adhering to content syntax.
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-enforce levels of warning from 0 - 6

message: Only pre-approved images to be used, and all to be similar size.
: Level 0, 1 & 2 warnings and attention templates
: Level 3 warnings
: Level 4 warning
: Level 5 & 6 block
: Level 5 block timed
Exceptions?
Shared educational IP
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Create Obvious vandalism either ov0 - 6 or vand0 - 6 templates to replace vw and blatant vandal etc. Test warning are exactly for as the name suggests for people carrying out persistant tests, not for deliberate vandalism. Vandalism is vandalism and should be named thus.
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ov or vand

message: Behave warning becomes joke0 and joke --> joke1, funnybut --> joke2, Seriously --> Joke3, create joke 4,5 & 6 then tidied.
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joke

message: All block templates to be the same colour and format with maybe exceptions of the icon(see above), along the lines of vblock
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good for me, makes my life easier. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocks

message: 3rr, mos, lang, date, wr, spam, npa, threat need all the levels 0 - 6 including -n's
:Civil 1 and 2 should be within npa, maybe npa 0 & 1?
:Differentiate between threat and npa, threatban is re-directed to npa6.
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: missing warnings

message: Create copyright level 0 - 6, and remove different names for same offence as per joke and ov.
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: Some warnings include ==Title==, this should either apply to all or a type of warning, i.e. level 4, or to none at all.
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Warnings which include ~~~~ should be removed
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think these will be one of the first ideas we will be starting on next week, as with titles above. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed, I always sign manually after using one, making it look like I signed twice. --Mr. Lefty  (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ditto. Unnecessary waste of time in figuring out whether you've signed twice. Time spent fixing signatures is time better spent actually fighting vandals. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto signature

message: Add this comment to all templates, to make sure they remain harmonised long after we're finished.

Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template comment

message: I've created Template:WPUW just for testing purposes, to save having loads of test templates 
:and now a sandbox, access from the project page.
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Testing

message: Cheers Avi for the info, looking at what we have then I would think it's very easy to have what we could call guidance messages level 0 - 2, and then for want of a better word rebuking messages 3 - 4, and then the blocks 5 - 6. I'm going to create a new WP:TT page here in the next week, which we can keep track of who's done what and our overall status. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two systems

message: As I can't edit alot of the pages, what I will do is create a page linked to the project page (upload) which will list the text to be cut n pasted and the name of the destination template. 
Also I would maybe like to s-prot all templates once finished. But is it necessary to have some of the templates fully protected, and others not at all. If we are protecting blocking templates then they should all be protected, but I and many others will have all these templates eventually in our watch lists, and can revert any vandalism on sight. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to willing admins 

message: *Pathos and any others who are lurking at the moment. We have quite a few people who have expressed a willingness to help, and alot of them most probably want direction. I have an idea how we can use them until we actually get some consensus and start editing early next week. What we could do is ask them to sit on the recent changes page keeping an eye on anyone doing reverts, or leaving messages. and leave a message on their page along the lines of below. 
*P. Just change the text below as you see fit or let me know if it's OK and I'll get everyone on it.
*I'm going to see if I can get this spammed out through the Signpost, and I'll hit some of the IRC channels later as well.
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RC patrollers 

message: * I feel that all messages on IP Talk Pages should be categorized by month, in the format == January 2006 ==.  Although, after how many months should these headings be archived?  For high traffic IP's like AOL ones, they could have been editing on wikipedia for months and months.  Is 6 months too many that should be placed on a talk page? --lightdarkness 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged from [[WP:UWLS]] Categorized by month

message: * What do you guys think about templates?  Should we possibly make one that says "This talk page should be cleaned up to be more readable by users and admins alike, see WikiProject IP Talk Pages for more information"?  Or is that just too cheezy and in the way of the real purpose of a talk page?  --lightdarkness 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged from [[WP:UWLS]] Templates

message: I've been working to standardise user warnings layout for a while, and developed a set of unwritten guidelines which were improved over time. I've been meaning to codify these guidelines through my WikiProject on user warnings, but this WikiProject would be better suited towards that goal. (On an unrelated note, the WikiProject name is a bit too specific; are we uninterested in registered vandal talk pages? How about the WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation? :D) 
:*Done! --lightdarkness 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I semi-agree.  I don't think we should limit it to just AOl or schools, but to any shared IP, where it is clear by the whois lookup that it is an AOL/school/or ISP that clearly shares the address amongst many users. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged from [[WP:UWLS]] Guidelines proposal 

message: Now that we've got a pretty good list of guidelines to follow, should we update the main page with "This is exactly what you should do", and throw a "Suggested Guideline" on the page?  I'm just wondering what you all think the next step is. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right, substituting "what you should do" with "what we suggest you do". // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged from [[WP:UWLS]] Follow up

message: I regularly remove AOL warnings older than a few days. I would like to add this to the guidelines (under an "AOL" subheading), along with the following explanation.
: AOL rapidly rotates IP addresses assigned to its users, so that a message addressed to one user is often recieved by a different user. AOL users are typically assigned a new talk page at intervals of less than fifteen minutes. The result of this problem is that legitimate users may check their talk page and be confused or aggravated by a large number of warnings that they had nothing to do with. This is the subject of many complaints emailed to the Foundation, and has a noticeably negative effect on the opinions of legitimate users operating from AOL.
Any thoughts ? // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support this :D --lightdarkness (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, maybe more like a month or two.  I've seen AOL users keep their IP for several days, sometimes a couple weeks. --Rory096 04:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still an AOL IP though, and it is shared amongst many users. --lightdarkness (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not shared, it's randomly reassigned.  Until it's reassigned, it's the same person, and there's no telling how fast it will change. --Rory096 04:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone dig up a paper on the net outlining the specifics of AOL IP rotation?  Many could benefit if this information is made widely available. ~ PseudoSudo 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Proxy Info Hope that helps :D --lightdarkness (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice (definitely just doubled my knowledge on the subject); though, important facts on the rotation timing still remain unknown: how many users on average are on the same proxy IP at one time; what's the average rotation length; is it completely useless to leave warnings on proxy IP talk pages, et cetera. ~ PseudoSudo 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Blocking an AOL IP address for any length of time is completely counterproductive; it's like roadblocking an entire highway to stop a single car after they've passed. AOL IP addresses simply shift too rapidly to make IP addresses reliable IDs until AOL fulfills its recent promise to send XFF headers. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to have to agree with Mareino and rory on this one. There are reasons why we block AOL vandals for short lengths of time; to stop vandalism. If we didn't do this, the amount of vandalism would be nearly unbearable. At this point with the "new" blokcing system, and as far as I am concerned, legimate AOL users will register an account if they want to contribute constructively (and not be affected by blocks!). Otherwise, the vandals will continue to use the IP addresses to their advantage unless we take the appropriate action. I don't see weekly removal warnings helping here (monthly, sure). We have Wikipedia:Advice_to_AOL_users for a reason. If AOL really cared about its customers none of this would be happening right now... // Pilotguy (Have your say) 00:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  America Online IP ranges are blocked, not individual IP addresses (or, at least, the latter are not normally effective). Dynamic addresses can be kept by a single user during an entire session, but proxy addresses shift so rapidly that a user attempting to answer a comment on his IP talk page will usually do so as a different IP. Feel free to block ranges or dynamic addresses, but blocking individual proxy IPs wastes both your time and that of the legitimate users who use it. For the same reasons, keeping old warnings on a proxy IP page wastes both the time of the affected legitimate users and that of the email response team that must allay their concerns. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: IMHO I don't think we should bother leaving any warning messages on AOL talk pages. Generally speaking, an AOL user's IP changes too fast for them to receive the message. It makes little sense to leave them a message they won't ever see but someone else (who is likely innocent) will see. Accidental warning of innocent users discourages good faith edits or confuses them unnecessarily, thereby decreasing their interest in Wikipedia. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some AOL users are subscribing via Time warner cable modems. It's possible that those are the accounts you're seeing with IP addresses that don't change over multiple weeks. In general though, when I look at the access logs for my own website, AOL users' IP addresses change just about every time they go to another page on my site -- i.e., often within a few seconds. For this reason, I think blocking and warning AOL vandals is futile; either live with AOL vandalism (heaven forbid) or else just block anonymous editing by AOL users. (An exception would be the IP addresses associated with cable modem accounts). I see no in-between approach as it stands now. --A. B. 03:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged from [[WP:UWLS]] AOL warnings

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged from [[WP:UWLS]] Project directory

message: Wikipedia already seems mighty soft on vandalism; why this push to expunge records of vandalism after 90 days? What problem is it solving? --A. B. 03:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We remove warnings because said warnings are placed on shared IP discussion pages, which are used by a large number of users; the messages are then read by many legitimate users, several of which will be quite offended by the unfounded accusations and write to the Foundation to tell us all about it. Further, other users tend to block or revert based on warnings on the IP talk page, which is misleading because the last vandalism is several days old, the vandal is now on a different IP address, and the user just reverted a legitimate edit and blocked many legitimate users. A select few  reverted or blocked users apparently choose to email random administrators or post to random discussion pages about the evil censorship that runs rampant on Wikipedia, which is annoying if nothing else. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged from [[WP:UWLS]] Why are you expunging talk page warnings after 90 days? 

message: I'm triggered to look at vandals when they hit one of the articles on my watchlist. Being familiar with the topics, it's clear what's vandalism. Then I start looking at all their edits to other articles. I see that a bot has reversed their edit, but often bots just revert to another anon's edit, often vandalistic. 
If I look at that anon's edit and it's changing a date from 1924 to 1928, is that vandalistic? Should it be edited out if subsequent editors haven't spotted it? Being an unfamiliar topic, the answer's unclear to me. A quick way to deal with question is to look at the anon's talk page -- if it's full of warnings, I'll  edit it out the new date with a comment to the article's other editors to check the date, either in my edit summary  or on the talk page. Otherwise, I assume good faith and move on. Some accounts are virtually vandalism only, but the edits are of a low enough frequency that there may be only one warning or puzzled comment ("why did you do that?") in the last 90 days. Likewise, a talk page full of discussions with other editors about articles quickly shows this is probably a good faith editor.
Questions of this sort crop up several times a week when I'm reversing vandalism. It's nice to have the full history.
Subtle, uncaught vandalism such as a slight date or location changes are ultimately worse for Wikipedia's reliablility than the "JOEY is Gay!!!" kind -- at least readers are not unknowing absorbing deliberate misinformation since they just tune out the Joey stuff. --A. B. 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good reason to remove warnings. Judging users based on warnings issued to others with the same shared IP address is hardly fair to them. A more accurate way to check is through references. If the reference doesn't support the change (or they don't use an edit summary), revert and encourage them to use edit summaries and reliable sources. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pathoschild, procedurally you are absolutely right, however ... as I write this, I'm working my way through 212.219.94.65's latest spree and encountering just these sorts of questions . I've got 23 edits to check from yesterday and today, some to pages heavily edited by other anons. Now I've got to do encyclopedic research on each when questions arise? Ask these additional anons to use edit summaries? Does any editor always do this in these situations? I think I'm plenty conscientious as it is -- from what I can see, most editors (including admins) don't seem to go through vandals' other recent editors, let alone agonize over how far to revert. If we now have to do even more, I think even fewer folks will engage in this sort of action. --A. B. 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to my Wikibreak/day job; I'll let others finish cleaning up after this guy today. --A. B. 17:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, one final example from 212.219.94.65's November edits Start with his first edit to Mona the Vampire and step through the following 13 edits by him and others. Knowing nothing about Mona, try sorting this article out. Some other edits are likely vandalism but others are less clear.  --A. B. 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it! --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged from [[WP:UWLS]] -- Keeping old warnings makes some clean up easier

message: Hi everyone,
Sorry I've been a bit quiet the last couple of days, but I'm just planning a trip back to the UK. So I'll be incommunicado, for the next week or so and I'll re-start this around 10th Nov. cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 10:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm back after driving 1100km in 12 hours, gimme a couple of days, and I'll start back up. Now it's bedtime! Khukri  (talk . contribs) 23:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibreak 

message: I'm triggered to look at vandals when they hit one of the articles on my watchlist. Being familiar with the topics, it's clear what's vandalism. Then I start looking at all their edits to other articles. I see that a bot has reversed their edit, but often bots just revert to another anon's edit, often vandalistic. 
If I look at that anon's edit and it's changing a date from 1924 to 1928, is that vandalistic? Should it be edited out if subsequent editors haven't spotted it? Being an unfamiliar topic, the answer's unclear to me. A quick way to deal with question is to look at the anon's talk page -- if it's full of warnings, I'll  edit it out the new date with a comment to the article's other editors to check the date, either in my edit summary  or on the talk page. Otherwise, I assume good faith and move on. Some accounts are virtually vandalism only, but the edits are of a low enough frequency that there may be only one warning or puzzled comment ("why did you do that?") in the last 90 days. Likewise, a talk page full of discussions with other editors about articles quickly shows this is probably a good faith editor.
Questions of this sort crop up several times a week when I'm reversing vandalism. It's nice to have the full history.
Subtle, uncaught vandalism such as a slight date or location changes are ultimately worse for Wikipedia's reliablility than the "JOEY is Gay!!!" kind -- at least readers are not unknowing absorbing deliberate misinformation since they just tune out the Joey stuff. --A. B. 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good reason to remove warnings. Judging users based on warnings issued to others with the same shared IP address is hardly fair to them. A more accurate way to check is through references. If the reference doesn't support the change (or they don't use an edit summary), revert and encourage them to use edit summaries and reliable sources. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pathoschild, procedurally you are absolutely right, however ... as I write this, I'm working my way through 212.219.94.65's latest spree and encountering just these sorts of questions . I've got 23 edits to check from yesterday and today, some to pages heavily edited by other anons. Now I've got to do encyclopedic research on each when questions arise? Ask these additional anons to use edit summaries? Does any editor always do this in these situations? I think I'm plenty conscientious as it is -- from what I can see, most editors (including admins) don't seem to go through vandals' other recent editors, let alone agonize over how far to revert. If we now have to do even more, I think even fewer folks will engage in this sort of action. --A. B. 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to my Wikibreak/day job; I'll let others finish cleaning up after this guy today. --A. B. 17:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, one final example from 212.219.94.65's November edits Start with his first edit to Mona the Vampire and step through the following 13 edits by him and others. Knowing nothing about Mona, try sorting this article out. Some other edits are likely vandalism but others are less clear.  --A. B. 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it! --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged from [[WP:UWLS]] -- Keeping old warnings makes some clean up easier

message: OK I've had a first pass at adding all the warnings to the above that we will cover. I've highlighted warnings because I think after we have done this we should look at the other talk page templates i.e welcome, shared IP, etc. This is only a first pass, have a look through and make any mods you see fit. I think we should look to start this next Monday? I've already assigned myself three sets of warnings, take the others as you see fit. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/overview|Overview table]] 

message: Does anyone know a good bot writer? I think it may come in handy that as soon as someone uses an old template even with the redirect, it comes in behind, tidies it then send the user a polite message with a link to the new overview table? I'll have a look round but would appreciate any volunteers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bots

message: You guys should sound off some of this stuff or just talk to the folks at irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam-t, the wikipedia-spam talk channel. It's full of RC patrollers/vandal fighters, bot builders and seasoned admins all of whom are looking to squash vandals + spam. Being one of them, I drop a ton of user_talk warnings all over the place, and anyone there could have some good insight into this project. Take Thadius856's many unencyclopedic external link warning templates - we've been trying out template stuff too. JoeSmack Talk 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, left a couple of messages on IRC, and want to get hold of Thadius who has done some of your template work. I think we can incorporate your needs into our templates, which allows a more concerted approach to user page messages. Just need to know what you require out of your warnings, and we can try and find our common ground. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How has this been going? If nothing, keep trying! :) JoeSmack Talk 02:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Left a message on Thadius's talk page, but no response. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 08:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop in at wikipedia-spam 

message: It's helluva quiet with all these names that keep getting added. C'mon get stuck in pleeaassssseee!
Khukri  (talk . contribs) 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here, but rather busy on Meta at the moment. I'll be able to concentrate on this WikiProject more when I mostly finish up there. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 19:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is anybody out there? 

message: Just a couple of days ago I ran upon User:John_Reaves/grid - which seems to be a user's individual way of tracking names of warning messages - a similar thing to what we are doing here.  It could come in very handy! -- Chuq 07:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the template that started this whole review, it's almost an exact copy of WP:TT. We will be creating an newer version, using the first table on the overview page. Even though it's not complete yet,  looks much neater don't you think ;). If you're interested in some work let me know. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 08:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I just got a reply from John R about this, saying he didn't write it :) the page he said it was from was Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace! -- Chuq 08:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Reaves' grid

message: Reword delete 0 - 2 to reflect as well as text removal or page blanking, it's to cover deletion of any procedural messages on a page, covers speedy delete, AFD, etc. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy delete, etc (21 Nov)

message: Recreation warning 0 - 2 covers spam-warning and recreated Khukri  (talk . contribs) 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recreate (21 Nov)

message: Has anybody here created any of the new templates, such as on a temporary page? I would like to help out, and it would be useful to see some of what we are going for. -- kenb215 talk 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting here, will finish a first pass for ,  and   over the next couple of days. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 13:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll probably create a few as well over the next couple of days. // I c e d K o l a (Contribs) 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend that we're all happy with the template before we go any further, I'll leave it where it is for now, but mod it as you see fit. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so I can get a better idea, should the level 2 warning be similar to the one I created for personal use? User:Iced Kola/T2? Than the level 3 warning should be similar to test4? Also, I'll take up the job of Userpage and talk page vandalism templates, and the creating inappropiate pages templates if there's no objections to that.   // I c e d K o l a (Contribs) 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for the long reply, and if you already know this stuff. First off, trust me there are no objections for people looking for work. I don't know if you seen them yet but there is an overview page that lists all the new templates, along the same lines as WP:TT. More importantly below that is a list of all the old templates, and this is so we can get the redirects in place, but it also acts as a check list to make sure, all the templates are included in some form with the new system. I've still to do groups 5 & 6 but should have that done in the next day or so. The reason I'm saying this is that I/we might identify old templates that could be incorporated into  a new one so I don't really want us to get ahead of ourselves. If you look here it's basically the guidelines written by User:Pathoschild and myself and I'd started doing the deletes, and then realised I could add the speedy delete stuff into it as well. Your T2 warning would be fine as a T1, but there will not be a test3 warning anymore, it will be re-directed to  as it's a bit ludicrous to be telling someone we're going to be blocking them for carrying out a test, where as we all know it for what it is, it's vandalism. We would like the test warnings to be for literally when people are carrying out tests, anymore than that it's vandalism. Help your self to the  and  warnings, just added your names to the overview page as responsible for those warnings. Just do them on a page like my template page we'll get a few pages knocked together, see if there's anything amiss and then we can do them in short order after that. Thanks Khukri  (talk . contribs) 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have any been created 

message: Hi,  I just added myself as "active" (by accident).  I then realized there was also an "interested" section.  While I haven't done anything yet, I want to be more involved than "interested" and if I can, enough to be considered "active", so I left myself there.  What is there that I can start on?  I've had some experience with reorganizing the templates, as I added the  template, reorganized the spam template nav box, as well as some stuff with getting rid of the -n templates.  I just didn't know their was a WikiProject!  Let me know what I can do. -- Renesis (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all welcome onboard. If you are familiar with the spam warnings then you are more than welcome to start with them. Start by taking a copy of this template page here and then create this page copy & pasting the template in. Add your name to the overview page with a link to your new page, and then review the redirects, the existing warnings, and try and making everything fit into the new structure. If you can see any redirects I've not done, that could be incorporated into spam, please add them. As I've said to some of the other editors, feel free, we've put some guidelines in place on the harmonisation page, but the rest is upto you, and you can play to your hearts content ;). Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   might fit somewhere into your templates. See section 6 Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 14:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added myself as "active" 

message: I've moded the base template to move the image away from the text and to make it look tidier. I've also added a standard text which looking through the overview can be modified to fit most of our new templates. 
Here's the base template and I've modified the  and  from templates to follow it. This is only an example so any ideas please feel free I won't be offended, edit away. Anyway I'm off skiing for a long weekend so my work here is done...... for now. P.S. Renesis, Iced Kola & Pathoschild, you've gone quiet, I need you guys to put these in place, Cheers. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Is there any interest for something like this? Banned users' IPs cannot be blocked indefinitely unless they are on static IPs. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, there's always interest. With a mind of trying to harmonise the warnings, it could be included in the level 2 block but it wouldn't have exactly the wording. It's Pathoschild domain the blocks and he's on a wikibreak at the mo. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block template for IPs of banned users? 

message: I was a bit confused by this edit: , especially since I can't seem to find the consensus on this talk page, Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Help:Everything or the project page for not including headers in warnings. They seem useful for organizational purposes, and save time we'd have to spend typing a unique header each time we use a warning when only a generic one is really needed. --W.marsh 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guys over at WP:UWLS have discussed this at some length, but for us it's a question of standardisation. For example if we take a standard vandal who works through the warnings very quickly we would end up with a page of headers and when a large proportion of the warnings are only one or two lines long we will end up with more headings than warnings. Where a warning template is given to a good editor with a managed talk page, it would be the issuing editor who would add the header, and in this case one warning would/should suffice. But unfortunately the majority of warnings issued do not stop with one warning, and for the same infraction having a warning header automatically each time is unnecessary, and would only fill up a talk page. Regards Khukri  (talk . contribs) 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  headers 

message: I created the article creation warning templates, and I would appreciate if anyone can review them and make any improvements they think would be good. As for the tpv templates, I should get to them on friday or a bit earlier. // I c e d K o l a 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine for me, I think though we can reword slightly to add the re-creation of article/pages as well. What do you think? Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 13:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/Creation]] 

message: I stumbled into this page by accident more or less.  I think the outlines on the template page are very good.  They are clearer than many of the current templates.  I've been frequently frustrated with the number of times a vandal can strike before a ban is put in place.  On the pages I watch, most are vandalized by anonymous users with a long history of vandalism.  I look forward to being able to use this template structure, which will result in faster bans for blatant vandals in my opinion.  Keep up the good work.  Thanks, Dan Slotman 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it's nice to know there are some poeple out there anticipating our work. Regards Khukri  (talk . contribs) 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good work! 

message: Looking at the remaining warnings on the overview page, the warning for releasing another editors personal info and legal threats. IMHO these are warnings that one cannot assume good faith with, they are done with intention and usually for malicious reasons. My idea is that we create a nuclear level of warnings, of a one warning and then a blocked. Whaddya think? Khukri  (talk . contribs) 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully. For personal info and legal threats, there should only be a strict level 3 warning. If a user really feels that it was out of good faith one way or another, they can just use . // I c e d K o l a 17:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One warning then you're out 

message: A quick look through Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview made me discover we're not including auto-inserting signatures into the warnings. Since they are mostly made as s or wikitables, a signature dangling below it won't look good. So, maybe we should embed them inside the table/div? Миша13 10:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: mmmmm, bugga just done a few tests and see what you mean. I, and others (see archives), don't like the idea of auto including signatures in templates, as that would change how things are done with other templates possibly. Is there anyother way we can do this then, wikitables?, same as below I only created the template just to get things started, any ideas? Khukri  (talk . contribs) 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: divs and wikitables are practically the same thing. And they're generally a good idea, since unwrapped warnings with images tend to stack ugly on the talk pages. But in case we use divs, we must also embed signatures inside, because there's no other way (except parameters, which is basically same thing) - a sig appended after a table won't magically "hop" into the box. Миша13 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT: Signatures 

message: I think all level 2 should have the "!" in the triangle symbol and all level 3 to have the stop hand symbol. Someone just scrolling through a talk page will be alerted to the warning if they see a symbol like that. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 16:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Levels 0 & 1 are mild notices/reminders, but levels 2 & 3 usually mention the possibility of a block, which is where things get dead serious. Миша13 16:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  0 & 1 are information notice that assume good faith or doesn't assume anything about the editors actions hence only the information  symbol. level 2 is where we start saying watch it, we have our eye on you hence   and then level three is OK you've been warned now you have no other chances  and taken this way seem logical to me. My only point for Teck is, you say scrolling through a talk page, for the offending editor with this system he should have had one if not two warnings/messages prior to getting the red image so it shouldn't come out of the blue or as a surprise. Misza, please I implore you change the images on the jokes templates ;) Anyway these are only suggestions I have been here doing this for a couple of months now so I may have become entrenched in my ideas, so if I seem hestiant let me know and the same for any new ideas, and thanks for your participation. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 17:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is exactly the "good faith" reason for which I left the original smiley idea on 0 & 1 level joke templates. They're supposed to be used in cases when the editor giving the warning also thinks that the edit was funny, but would like to point out it may not be appropriate. :) For the sake of standarisation, however, I concur that 2 & 3 should have the triangle and hand images as TeckWiz suggested. Миша13 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols 

message: Seem to also cover NOR - suggest we rename those to nor0, nor1, as opposed to unsourced0, unsourced1 etc. Easier to remember and faster to type. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced

message: Hi guys, sorry did not even know this Wikiproject existed.
I thought I would tell you guys three things that I am doing at the moment with CSD warning templates, and see you have any comments or issues.
#Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#CSD deletion templates creating a new set of CSD deletion templates to be used instead of CSD warning templates, when an Admin deletes article.
#Merging of redundant CSD templates Template:nn-notice into Template:nn-warn and Template:spam-notice into Template:spam-warn, as well as any other redundant ones I can find - appropriate process used see talk pages.
#The heading issue with CSD warning templates has been raised here Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD templates and solution is here Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD templates - HEADINGS. The solution allows for headers if so desired.
I suppose there might be some big issues with the final point, considering one of the Goals on this project is to have NO HEADINGS. But maybe you might want to consider the solution mentioned above - allow best of both worlds. Cheers Lethaniol 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, doesn't look like there is any problems for us with what you are doing with CSD's even with the headers, as one off messages such as CSD, welcomes, etc, are different from warnings which tend to be used more frequently on the user page. However, as you demonstrated by not knowing we existed, it shows how fragmented the generation of templates is on Wikipedia. I and a couple of other editors have ideas in the near future to bring all message templates under the roof of one project, with an idea to harmonise the format of everything. If you have a look at our redirects page some of the templates you mentioned are on there. It's a large ask, and editors like yourself with experience in certain areas, would be an asset. If you're interested let me know, but it will not get into full flow until the new year until the work slows up here. Regards Khukri  (talk . contribs) 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD warnings 

message: Using some fancy template syntax, I have managed to enrich some existing projects with the following features:
*Optional text, as requested above, carried in the second parameter  - this will be embedded within the message box right after the standard text.
*Optional signatures - embedded signatures are on by default, but if you pass an extra parameter , it will not be inserted.
All this is done with this piece of code:
: 
Also, we're switching the design from s to wikitables. This has few advantages, including that the images will not "spill" out of the message boxes if the text is very short. Few existing projects have already been converted to the new scheme. You can see a demo on User:Khukri/templates - when creating new templates series, please copy that code (in edit-mode, not by subst:'ing). Thank you, Миша13 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: all existing templates made so far by people have been updated to the new scheme. Миша13 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And examples now added on discussion pages. Thanks to Misza for all time taken. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template features 

message: Hi,
Pathos I know you are involved heavily in both projects. I'm having a look round at your mandate here, and the mandate of the revitalised User Warnings Project and there is alot of synergy and think we can pool our resources. Any thoughts on a merge of projects and resources? Regards Khukri  (talk . contribs) 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm confused on what the difference is between the two projects. -- nae'blis 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All members have been informed, if there are no further responses by 27th December, this project will be merged with WP:UW. Regards Khukri  (talk . contribs) 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not thoroughly convinced of a merge because even though both projects are about warning templates, they seem to me to be very different things. By that, I mean WP:UW seems to be about standardising the look and wording of the templates that are posted to user talk pages. While WP:UWLS seems to be about making a standard layout of templates that are posted to user talk pages; the monthly headers and bullets and so on. --Geniac 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you mentioned both project are about warning templates, and with the amount of work we have recently taken on, to add the headers and bullets, etc would not be a huge amount of work. Also if the members here were willing to come over with the work then I can see no difference on how the work is being carried out, but just where it is being done. Eventually I would like to create a one stop shop for all templates, so new editors don't bounce around from pillar to post if they have any questions and all templates are managed from one central location.  Once we have done the leveled warnings, hopefully finished mid-end Jan, we will be starting on welcome templates, sharedip and all other single issue templates, and I think it would be good if we are all singing off the same hymn sheet instead of one group doing the borders, another doing the text, and another deciding what size we should do the images. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I understand the preference for a one stop shop; I was just concerned that merging projects with different goals would mean that one or the other would be lost in the shuffle. I assume you mean for everything user talk namespace template related, not all templates (navboxes, infoboxes, etc)? --Geniac 01:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, only userspace. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 09:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with the merge now and happy with the answers to my questions. --Geniac 13:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged from [[WP:UWLS]]--[[WP:UW]] 

message: I noticed on the overview page that the page move templates are listed with question marks at the bottom of the first redirect table. Is there a reason that they haven't been moved to the main section? It seems as if it could be included easily, by adding this line to the end:
Page moves					Yes	Unassigned	Not started
-- kenb215 talk 23:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add away, I think I only questioned marked it as I wasn't sure at the time if I could merge it with something else. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 11:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. -- kenb215 talk 04:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move templates 

message: Hi.  I'm really not sure where to ask this question, but here goes. I'm involved with Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which lists and evaluates non-English pages before they are PROD'ed, speedied, or put up for AfD.  As part of that work, we warn the posters of the non-English content, using . Now, that template already has one optional parameter, to list the name of the article posted.  But I would really like there to be another such parameter, where we could specify the language edition Wikipedia of the content.  That could produce a message encouraging the user to contribute to that specific language Wikipedia. Basically, I'm thinking something like .  At PNT, users are already identifying language-of-content, and I really think this modification could be helpful.  How/where do I propose this template modification? Thanks for the assistance. --Fsotrain09 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might have the wrong place. I'd try Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) with this exact same post. Good luck! JoeSmack Talk 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifying/adding parameter to <nowiki>{{subst:UE}}</nowiki>

message: When should we start transferring the templates on the subpages to their new pages? TeckWizTalkContribs@ 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As alot of the template names are already used, we can't roll them out piecemeal until they are all finished, as we will end up with a hotchpotch of warnings and levels. When all of the templates are finished and have a successful review period, then we'll start implementing, but lets get them all finished first. I think third/fourth week in Jan will be a likely time for roll out. If you want something to do in the meantime, as well as the outstanding templates, Joesmack had mentioned  [[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings#The_next_step|here]] about re-doing some of the notify alls, if you want to help out. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 18:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfering 

message: Okay-I'm not that good at parser functions, but from looking at the template, I was able to remove one function that was in the template twice. However, the article function doesn't seem to working the way that the usage stated, and the way it should be if you look at which function number it is. Help is needed. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem ;) Pathoschild is on a wikibreak at the moment working in wikimedia, so his template isn't up for review yet. I'll leave it a week or so and then I'll leave him a message, as round here there's a couple who can do the funstions pretty good, Misza et al, if he doesn't come back in time. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block Templates 

message: It seems that the usage template, which is not included in transclusioning, can sometimes differ from the actual usage, like the block templates. So, I think that the actual usage template should be subst'd on the template page, and then fixed to conform with the template it's talking about. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 18:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage Notices 

message: On the overview page, when it lists where to redirect, what do the new sections with the number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mean? TeckWizTalkContribs@ 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're just arbitrary page breaks otherwise you're editing one monster page. Khukri  (talk . contribs) 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to redirect 

message: Hope you don't mind TeckWiz, but I copied your post over from my talk page, as it's quite a pertinant discussion, and needs the whole projects input. 
Since we have separated test templates and vandalism templates, I don't see why we should have a vandalism level 0. If you can't give it above a 0, it's really a test, not vandalism, as current guidelines state to start at level 2 for nonsense and such. I personally don't even think there should be a vand1, but other users do so it should stay. I think there should be no level 0 for other types of vandalism also, like blanking. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason (in my opinion) that we have level 0 with the new system for all templates is that we have to assume good faith with first time editors. I know it's contradictory to AGF with someone who has just left "I love Doris" on a page. But if we at first have concilatory tones try to educate someone about their expected composure whilst editing, then we might just get another good editor out it. I know it's a pain in the proverbial after a night of RCP'ing where one just assumes the worst in every editor. We have to take the moral high ground, and be always reasonable to new editors. But as soon as someone has one level0 warning on their page, that's it, they've been told and it's open season if they choose to vandalise again. I also believe it's important that you add this for the npa warnings, because as soon as we deviate from the new layout then we are just negatiing the reason for having a new system and are just recreating the old, with a varied system of warnings. Would appreciate other members thoughts here please. Cheers Khukri  (talk . contribs) 18:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Templates for WP:UW