Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archive 1

message: OK AWB is set up to rock n roll but I'm going to wait until tomorrow morning.
*Find Replace 1
*:px|left]] }}}   -->   px]] }}}
*Find Replace 2
*:Thank you.   -->   
*Find Replace 3
*:   -->   
This is only being done to the UW templates listed at WP:UTM. If anyone wants any more mass changes done or doesn't want me to go ahead please leave a message here or on my talk. Khukri 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucas if you get a chance, are all the first arguments correctly subst'd? if not I'll do them at the same time. Khukri 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AWB tomorrow

message: OK I've spent most of the morning going through all 139 templates. Things I've done are
*All lefts removed
*All 2nd parser arguments are now subst'd
*All level 1, 2 and single level notices all have simply Thank you. in the 2nd argument. 
*All level 3, 4 and single level warnings are blank in the second argument.
*All icons except blocks now include optional icon argument to remove extraenous fluffyness ;)
*Added spaces to between icon and text.
All the templates even the newer additions are now in my watchlist, even since we created them I've started to see divergence in the system in this short time. I've had to leave personal messages with a number of editors recently who have come by and changed one or two warnings as it suits them (one was blocked ended up permanently), without any forethought for the entire system. If anyof you see this sort of thing please direct them to discuss their changes here or preferably at WP:UTM first. Now for an afternoon of beer n rugby! Khukri 11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Done

message: Mmm... I was wondering on the opportunity to bring the speedy deletion notices (such as ) in the scope of the project, with a shiny (i) icon. I am tagging a lot of articles for speedy deletion these days, and the  series is not clear enough (especially for A7). Do we do a one shoe fits all speedies (the problem being that we will explain the  part, but not the rationale behind the deletion)? Or we could do a single issue template especially for A7, errrr... ? (Or we can leave it as it is, of course, I am merely suggesting ;) -- lucasbfr talk 08:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we did, it could just be uw-a7, since uw itself means user warning. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 11:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'm working on a draft right now (which is nn-warn shortened), I'll wait a bit to see what the others think before considering moving it to the template space. -- lucasbfr talk 12:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Great idea but do you want it as UW- as it's not really a user warning per se. what about sp-a7? Cheers Khukri 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah you see why I wanted to have some input before. On the other hand it'll follow the same look and feel than the uw templates and is an informative template... so I don't know... Creating an other "subset" of warnings might simplify the  template by splitting it into 2 templates (the warning, and the how-to part). THat one is a bit weird at the moment... -- lucasbfr talk 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, what does "sp" stand for? -- lucasbfr talk 06:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy, OK it was the first thing that came to my head. I'm just a little against calling everything that's in this project uw- as alot of our templates especially the single issue aren't warnings. But it's a minor issue, and groups everything so I'm not too worried. Cheers Khukri 07:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems someone created a  already. it's 2 AM here so I don't have the time to look more into it now. -- lucasbfr talk 23:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my hope that these can be standardized and easily guessable; eg,  or  for  or . Of course, we might not need one for, say, G7 :) GracenotesT § 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking among the same lines. Or, alternatively, we could transform uw into 2 different prefixes, uw for the warnings, and un (user notice) for the notice messages messages like for example . I think both ideas have their merits, depending mostly on how many prefixes you want in the end. -- lucasbfr talk 12:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion notices 

message: Hi, I started to work a bit on that one. It's a first draft, feel free to comment/rewrite everything ;). The idea is to be able to use the template with or without a header (header=1), with or without an icon (icon=n), and before or after deletion (delete=1). You can see some sample outputs on my sandbox. I am not sure about the wording of the deleted version. -- lucasbfr talk 08:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't looked through the wording in detail, looks good though, but I would suggest the syntax on the icon header & delete should all be the same i.e y or n. Khukri 09:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. Hopefully this won't seem like template-cruft, but what if we had a "short" and "long" version of the speedy deletion user talk template? The long one should be used first to provide an overview of, for example, notability on Wikipedia. The short one should be used to inform the user of deletion in a terser manner: this way, we wouldn't spam the same information about policies and guidelines on the user talk page more than once, but merely provide a way to tell them to stop, and (more importantly) to inform fellow users of the articles. As for the "before or after deletion" part, could we use #ifexist there? GracenotesT § 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, theses templates are the long version, and the  series are the short ones? I'll try to play with #ifexist, I've never used it before. If it does what I think that's a great idea. -- lucasbfr talk 14:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good and provides more info than the uw-create templates. It looks similar to the existing Nn-warn series. -- Hdt83  Chat 22:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm thinking sp-notable may be better. I would think most users would think of a speedy deletion as "sp", not "sd". --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add to this line, changing it to "This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, or game, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable" or something of the sort.  Drinking games, especially, get frequently deleted due to lack of notability. Other made-up games (drinking and not) are also frequently added here, in an attempt to "spread the word". hmwithtalk 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think we should stay at the letter of the WP:CSD text, adding stuff to A7 is pressy slippery :) -- lucasbfr talk 06:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First draft of {{tl|Sd-notable}} 

message: There is often vandalism being contributed to the WikiCalendar pages.  Please create a warning template to warn those who add their own names or names of friends to the births in the year's birthdays, etc.  The message that is typically used is "Please do not add yourself or anyone else without a Wikipedia article to the Wikicalendar pages. To have an article, a person must meet the criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Thank you". I am assuming that this message is typed manually. It would be great if there was a template such as uw-wikicalendar, etc.  - Gilliam 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think this type of violation is meant for our project. We're trying to keep the number of templates down, just type it out, or name it something like . --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a generic test or vandalism warning would be most appropriate for those edits. The templates have the option to add your own commentary to them if you want to personalize them to the situation. It's not possible to have specialized templates for every possible type of inappropriate edit. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiCalendar vandalism 

message: I've added a line to  stating that deleted warnings are viewable in the page's history. I've run across a few people who seem concerned about this and who have been manually adding such a note. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. --Geniac 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about deleted warnings 

message: There are frequent clearly non notable autobios of junior high school students where, although they totally misunderstand WP, a formal warning such as we have been giving is simply inappropriate--I am thinking particularly of those where they are clearly making a personal statement and while it is embarrassing to us and will be to them, we should not come on the same way we do to corporate spammers. I often improvise something, and many of us also do,, but I think we need a simpler way of doing it with an alternate template for at least "inappropriate article" and I suggest the wording:
"I'm sorry, but articles about your accomplishments and biography will have to wait until you become famous, as demonstrated by magazine articles or other reliable sources referring to you and your work. That's the way things work here, so it's been necessary to delete the page {{{}}} But we'd be glad for you to contribute on things that are already notable:" followed by a brief welcome message. 
DGG 09:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for "inappropriate first article" we have  in the "Other" section, and we have  for autobiographies. If Firstarticle isn't enough and uw-autobiography is too "formal" (and these junior high school student articles are really that common), you could base a  on Firstarticle. Anomie 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gentleness 

message: Do we really need separate warnings for userpage vandalism? Why don't we just redirect to the vand series? --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should redirect. I like the TPV series, as removing or changing talk page comments can be a sneaky way to try to change consensus etc.  However, user page vandalism is really just plain old vandalism.  One UPV template would be plenty, but I don't think we really even need one.  As we integrate more single use warnings, I think it's a good idea to trim off some of the existing redundant warnings, and UPV is a great place to start.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Userpage vandalism is just plain old vandalism. --Hdt83  Chat 05:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your agree, and all I can say is Hallelujah. When we started this project, if we'd tried to wipe out this many warnings in one go, there would have been all hell to pay. I'm glad now that so many extraneous warnings are now beginning to fall by the wayside. One thing I think we should look at though is keeping a record of why and when these decisions were made. I noticed Lucas had to revert someone for putting in icon lefts, yesterday and it was lucky he had the link to hand. But it is becoming more and more often that when we blitz one of the warnings we then have to go looking for the explanation diffs, as someone questions it 6 months later. So good idea, make sure there's nothing that exists in upv, that could expand or enhance the V series, and merge/redirect & delete away. Khukri 08:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything keepable, and will redirect them now to the appropriate v one. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 11:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah good thing I was born with a degree in googling ;). I am really busy these days, but I think the FAQ should be expanded with our reasoning behind the layout. -- lucasbfr talk 17:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong section lucas? --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@(Let's Go Yankees!) 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Userpage vandalism is plain old vandalism, but the current vandalism template implies it's an article, upv template should stay as it is. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late :). I've already redirected it, and one word needed to be changed doesn't mean we should keep the template. Maybe a parser functions wizard to make it so that if the page listed in the warnings namespace is user, replace "article" with "user page".  --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non of the templates mention article so to speak, the problem is, userspace vandalism templates are more specific than a general vandalism messages - they let the user know exactly what they've done wrong (they might not know vandalising userspace is bad). I wouldn't exactly say you've got a consensus to redirect them with 3 comments. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a page that doesn't get the attention of many people, I would say 3-4 is enough for a minor thing like this. Also, I think a person would understand that placing "I HATE BOB!!!!!!!!!!!" on a userpage is exactly the same as placing it on an article. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't consensus with the people that use the warnings though, I'd suggest taking it to AN, or the village pump. I personally oppose the idea of removing the warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to go now, but feel free to take it anywhere you think it's appropriate. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I! I'll take another look tomorrow, good look with the revision. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on Ryan's concerns, I went ahead and cross posted this conversation at WT:UTM and WT:VAND.  It's easy enough to undo the redirection if there's consensus against the change.--Kubigula (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ryan Postlethwaite UserPage vandalism is the same as regular vandalism, As he said the current template implys that an artical was vandalized but I don't think there should be a seperate template for UserPage vandalizm, Just keep the one we have now. oysterguitarist~Talk 18:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I feel especially UPV-1 is useful; I've used it in the past.  Somebody may do a well-meaning edit to a userpage without realising that's off-bounds, or it may be the user herself having forgotten to log in.  Maybe  we can reduce it to a single-level warning?  The higher levels of UPV don't differ all that much from the regular vandalism series, so I feel redirecting those is OK. Phaunt 17:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phaunt's argument seems reasonable.  -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about having just a single issue warning for userpage vandalism? Dish that out then anything after that is just plain old vandalism. Also most of these templates should be deliberatly boiler plate, and can be refined with the 2nd parsered argument. Khukri 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Khukri's idea of having 1 warning for uerpage vandalism, Having more wouldn't be that helpful. Then again what if the vandal is persistant on vandalizing UserPages? oysterguitarist~Talk 23:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Then heshe is a vandal, and should be treated in such way. →AzaToth 23:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I made a warning template at my sandbox it it's not that good but it's a start. Tell me what you think. oysterguitarist~Talk 00:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, although I would have copied from the old uw-upv1. The wording there flows a little nicer. Anomie 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a second warning message it's wording is a little better. Feel free to make changes to it at my sandbox. oysterguitarist~Talk 01:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I say just use the old level 1 warning and redirect the rest to the uw-v# warnings.  -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced there's a real need for the template, but if people find it useful then I suppose there's no harm in it either.  I agree with Mufka that we should simply revert to the old version of upv1 and redirect the rest.  If we list upv as a single use template, then hopefully we can delete the other upv# warnings after a while when editors have gotten out of the habit of using them.--Kubigula (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we just go with Khukri idea? oysterguitarist~Talk 14:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be the solid middle ground, so I've implemented it.   is the single use userpage vandalism warning, and I've added it to UTM as such.  The rest of the series redirects to the matching vandalism series.  Khukri - let me know if I missed anything.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  upv series 

message: Hi, not sure if this has been brought up before, but has this project been working with user script projects? I use Twinkle for my vandal-fighting and recently when I mentioned WP:UW over on their talk it seemed they were not aware of the warning layout being used.
AzaToth says he will try and implement UW into Twinkle script, but I was just wondering if other script projects were in a similar situation? Would be good for them to get on board with a standard approach to user warnings. --Bren talk 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aza, has done alot of work with this project in the past. The layout is just a guideline, alot of us do follow it, and if you look wherever I've put a block in place I usually UW-ify the page at the same time. Betacommand was lopking at doing vandalproof, and issued a changed text file, but I haven't spoken to them about it in a while. He did say however that they were working on a global tool along the same lines as VP, I might have a look on IRC tonight. Vandalsniper, etc I don't have any idea about how they do it, anyone else use them or wanna give them a shout. Remember however, Aza was involved in alot of these warnings from the beginning and thankfully used them in twinkle, other editors and vandaltools creators might not like the uw system. Khukri 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked about changing to the new warnings at User talk:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool, but got no response (other than from Lucas, who apparently has his own version).--Kubigula (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - Lupin's tool now gives you the option to warn with uw-v1 or uw-t1.  Fantastic change by whoever did it!--Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait and see if people start screaming :). -- lucasbfr talk 09:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ready to fight for the change - it makes Lupin's tool about 50% better, IMO, and increases my personal efficiency on RCP.--Kubigula (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Khukri. I also try and UW-ify talk pages, particulary on anons as so many warnings on shared IPs may scare away the newbies. I don't mind tidying up warnings, but with active vandals by the time I've SharedIP templated and cleaned up the warnings, another vandal-reverter has warned them also, edit-conflicting me as it takes much longer than a script. --Bren talk 07:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engaging script projects to follow WP:UW style 

message: How come when we removed all the auto signing things from the warnings, we didn't remove them from the block templates? --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prolly because the block template is in his own div, when the rest of the warnings are no longer in a table. That being said, I have no opinion on whether or not we should sign inside or not. Twinkle signs twice anyway :D. But I like the fact that the block is in a box. -- lucasbfr talk 21:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me to, but the autosigning is switched off by default, and I almost always use it now. i.e. . One template I use often these days and am very happy with it. Khukri 08:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-signing block templates 

message: A user created uw-aiv2. Since uw-aiv is a single use warning, and we don't want it to seem like a multi-level one, I renamed it to uw-notaiv, since they have different purposes. I choose it to mean "not [for] aiv." Anyone have a better name? --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is appropriate for the warning. You could probably just keep the name the same unless someone comes up with a better one. oysterguitarist~Talk 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The name is spot on (does exactly what it says on the tin), I think it should be strengthened around the fact it wasn't vandalism, make it stand out a bit if possible. Khukri 08:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an icon to match the other uw-warnings. --Hdt83  Chat 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{t1|uw-notaiv}} 

message: Anyone think we should make a uw- template for some re-creating a page after it's been deleted by AFD or something else (see , the old template). --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Maybe I'll even do it later if no one beats me to it. Anomie 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: call it . You can use the same parser function than  ;). -- lucasbfr talk 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was thinking of a warning for recreating deleting pages. Maybe on sd-repost, add 
"you may be blocked for repeatedly recreating deleted pages." Also, I still think sp- is better than sd- :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To be honest I don't care whether we do SPeedy deletion or Speedy Deletion. As long as we don't use db ;) -- lucasbfr talk 07:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reposting a deleted page 

message: Hey, I posted about a fair use image warning a while ago, but I think it was buried in other talk comments. Either way, I decided that after a while, it was a good idea to post again. Either way, I'm just wondering if anyone thinks they could be useful, they are located as follows:
im-fuir1, imfuir2, im-fuir3, im-fuir4, im-fuir4im
The point of these is for them to be used when a user adds an image to a page that is under fair use in certain circumstances, but not in the place that they used it. For example, a user placing a copyrighted image (like a logo for an organization, television show, movie, etc.) on a page where it isn't supposed to be (like their userpage). These templates would be nice notices about that, but also allow to give higher warnings if a user is doing it repeatedly. If a user was placing the images for vandalism, the "uw-image" series would be used instead. 
I would like to submit these to the User warnings project, and possibly the user warnings system, but I'm pretty sure that the community has to approve these first, so I just would like some thoughts on them, and whether they are allowed to be added to the project. Also, I also would like to know if I should submit these for semi-protection. Thanks! --HAL2008 talk 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice work! I do wonder, however, whether this would be more appropriate as a single level template. A quick blurb about the fair use policy, something like, "Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image, and only if no free equivalent is available. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people." along with a link to the full policy should do for the first violation. After that, the user presumably knows the policy and should just get plain vandalism templates, imho. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! I'd go for a single level notice, FU is not as clear as vandalism. The notice could also explain the basics behind WP:FUIR. -- lucasbfr talk 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there already is one, here, though it hasn't been absorbed into the WP:UW yet. It is a good single level notice. I was just giving it a shot since fair use images are different than vandalism, and a user might get confused with it. That way I figured the use of this would be able to inform them that they are still using the fair use images where they don't belong. I'll also make the single use template more WP:UW friendly.  --HAL2008 talk 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image warning series 

message: Hi!  I feel the header assumes that warnings will accumulate; for a first, WP:AGF warning I don't feel the header is really warranted (it looks sort of hungry and might confuse the user herself).  Might it be an idea to only add the header after the second or third warning? Phaunt 16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, I agree with you.  Personally, I use a "Your test worked" header if I am issuing a  or , and only use the "Warnings" header for more severe issues.  However, as always, YMMV.  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree too.  Personally, I don't get into headers until they crack into a new month, and then I use the month and year header.--Kubigula (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally rarely use headers on individual warnings, and have to say since my RfA, now when I issue blocks I go right through putting headers by month, etc as per the UW guidelines. As a general rule you'd be OK following if it's a new page I wouldn't put a header. If it's an established editor who's made a screw up, then I'd put a header. If it's an anon IP or persistant vandal, I would now use the recommended layout on the project page here. Khukri 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My modus operandi: I always use "Note" for my header when applying a normal warning, and "Notice" when applying a block notice. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use a header unless it is the only thing on the page. I use he name of the article unless its the only article.DGG 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except in special judgement call cases, I routinely use the headers and format described at WP:UW. This is because I also routinely post welcome templates (e.g.  or ) as well as IP tags () for the anon users. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header always required? 

message: I noticed that a lot of people mess with their talk page and the warnings so I made these. if anyone would like to help out (like add those hand pictures) you can do that if you want. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the hand pictures to the templates, fixed some words and added the missing links to Wikipedia: protection policy. Oysterguitarist~Talk 23:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to tell you this but your warnings already exist  ,  &  and the 4th level warning is standard . However as per the discussion above, I think now they should all be removed and replaced with a single issue template. If you wish I can delete these templates? Cheers Khukri 07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To be honest I fail to see what changes I could do to my talk page might be considered as vandalism since blanking is allowed? -- lucasbfr talk 08:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the tpv warnings were almost TfD'd, it became clear the only thing that these warnings can be used for is editing/refactoring of other peoples talk page comments, and as you say blanking and leaving messages on their on talk page, is not an offence. For JetLover, if it's about leaving messages like John smells of poo then npa warnings or any number of other templates can be applied here. Khukri 08:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it now as of abusing their talk page like making personal attacks and using it as a chat forum.Oysterguitarist~Talk 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited and cleaned up the templates a bit. Let me know if you have any comments and/or questions. Hydrogen Iodide 06:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone would like to contribute to my templates 

message: I think there should be a template that lets the vandal know that he/she has been reported to AIV. 
Here is what I think it should look like:
===Proposed warning===
----
  You have been reported to Administrator's intervention against vandalism for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. 
----
I modified the  template a little to get this. I would like some feedback on this proposal from the community. Hydrogen Iodide 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed many times in the past in both the village pump, and amongst these projects and was decided as being a bad idea. The fact they have been given a final warning is clear enough that if they transgress they will be blocked. If you then put a warning on the page saying you have been reported, the vandal will often try and see how much vandalism they will put in before they are blocked. Also it in some way undermines non admins, almost making them seem impotent saying "I've been dishing out these warnings and now I'm going to tell on you, because I can't do anything about you". We/I would like to see the vandal fighters integrated into the blocking admins seamlessly, you dish out the warnings, and then editors like myself will block. If the report has been done correctly and the vandal has received a recent final warning, there's no need to tell them they're going to be blocked, as an admin should be on it within minutes and then they get given . Khukri 09:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, after thinking about it, I guess it's best to report vandals behind their back. Hydrogen Iodide 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From past experience, as soon as disruptive vandals see their name on AIV (as long as they know about our process) they then start vandalising that page, too. Of course admins spot this and fix quickly, but still I'd rather not signpost new vandals to our AIV process. Maybe something like "You have been reported to the Administration team for your disruptive edits". Even then it sounds like I'm just dobbing them in. --Breno talk 01:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't like to refer to some unspecified "team". Perhaps when someone is troublesome enough to vandalize AIV, that's the best sign for us to get rid of him in a definitive way. DGG (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reported vandal template 

message: ----
  You have been reported to Administrator's intervention against vandalism for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. 
----
I modified the  template a little to get this. I would like some feedback on this proposal from the community. Hydrogen Iodide 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed warning

message: :This has been discussed many times in the past in both the village pump, and amongst these projects and was decided as being a bad idea. The fact they have been given a final warning is clear enough that if they transgress they will be blocked. If you then put a warning on the page saying you have been reported, the vandal will often try and see how much vandalism they will put in before they are blocked. Also it in some way undermines non admins, almost making them seem impotent saying "I've been dishing out these warnings and now I'm going to tell on you, because I can't do anything about you". We/I would like to see the vandal fighters integrated into the blocking admins seamlessly, you dish out the warnings, and then editors like myself will block. If the report has been done correctly and the vandal has received a recent final warning, there's no need to tell them they're going to be blocked, as an admin should be on it within minutes and then they get given . Khukri 09:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, after thinking about it, I guess it's best to report vandals behind their back. Hydrogen Iodide 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From past experience, as soon as disruptive vandals see their name on AIV (as long as they know about our process) they then start vandalising that page, too. Of course admins spot this and fix quickly, but still I'd rather not signpost new vandals to our AIV process. Maybe something like "You have been reported to the Administration team for your disruptive edits". Even then it sounds like I'm just dobbing them in. --Breno talk 01:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't like to refer to some unspecified "team". Perhaps when someone is troublesome enough to vandalize AIV, that's the best sign for us to get rid of him in a definitive way. DGG (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback

message: Hi everyone. You know what I just noticed, we don't have a uw-username block template, which is a pretty common reason for blocking. This one wouldn't need the time parameter though, since it's always indefinite. I'll start creating one based on , and another one based on . The parserfunctions and prettiness wizards will need to do the rest. :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I've created a regular username block template here, and a hard blocked username template here. It's basically just a copyedit of the old templates, with some things removed. Feel free to fix it. I'm thinking the regular one should be called uw-ublock, and the hard one uw-uhblock. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey i made a change to this oysterguitarist~Talk 05:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to get Ryan's input on this one, as it's his baby so to speak (leave a message WT:UAA. My first thought is it's too wordy, I think it should outline the reason for the block i.e. the name is unacceptable and doesn't meet X criteria, and like the vandalism templates and many others we then link to the relevant policy or guidelines already in place. Personally I think it's always better to link to the guidelines themselves so when they change we don't have to keep mod'ing the template. Give a brief premise to the block and then if they want to know more let them read it for themselves. Ta Khukri 08:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally prefer it wordy, because that template is used on new editors, that sometimes never edited before. Giving them directly the keys is a good idea. Keep also in mind that this template is normally used as a block reason. -- lucasbfr talk 09:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to Khukri, the template does have a paramter to state the exact reason, which I believe will take out the "this,that, or that". --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see AzaToth created  (good :)), but the template is fully protected instead of semi. This is the only block template that is fully protected. Any objection on semiprotecting it? (Or maybe we should fully protect all the block templates?) -- lucasbfr talk 12:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username Block 

message: An editor has expressed concern that your username may be inappropriate.Please note Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive and accounts with such names may be blocked. If editors agree that your username is inappropriate, consider changing your username into something that is appropriate.
]]<noinclude>
----
I think there should be a warning for users with mildly inappropriate usernames or names that are neither appropriate nor blatantly offensive. Pretty obvious that this template is derived from . Hydrogen Iodide 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created , what do you all think? That's just  uw-ified. (I removed the part about 3rd opinion, I think RfC is much better to do this) -- lucasbfr talk 10:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems good. However, one thing that I would remove is the article reference "subst:uw-username|Article"  because I don't think an article has anything to do with a username, unlike the vandalism series. Hydrogen Iodide 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate username warning 

message: Err... Personally I think it is extremely biting to newcomers. At the moment, I am using  which is not covered by WP:UW yet (but probably should, you are right). When a username is clearly inappropriate, there is no need for a warning (since there is not much the user can do to change this), these get blocked on sight at WP:UAA. When it is not clearly inappropriate, then I think a template more in the  would be better, because the user might not know he did something wrong. -- lucasbfr talk 08:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created , what do you all think? That's just  uw-ified. (I removed the part about 3rd opinion, I think RfC is much better to do this) -- lucasbfr talk 10:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems good. However, one thing that I would remove is the article reference "subst:uw-username|Article"  because I don't think an article has anything to do with a username, unlike the vandalism series. Hydrogen Iodide 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback

message: Alright, I've finished making a one-time notice/warning for fair use polcies on images. You can see the current one at: Uw-fuir. And the multiple level ones I made first (which if they are not used might as well be CSDed to save serverspace) 
A small sample follows: NOTE: Please note that this is the base version, the specific image name as well as a custom message may be added, just like all other warning templates.
 An image or media file has been removed from your userpage, user talk page, or other page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image, and only if no free equivalent is available. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people.. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Further use of thiese images will be considered  vandalism, and shall be treated as such.
</div> --HAL2008 talk Contributions 06:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image notice: 

message: # Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits was not constructive and has been reverted or removed.  Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  Khukri 07:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: crap, I saw that too and since I don't have AWB I blindly rollbacked the edits you did from this morning (UTC). But I screwed up badly since sometimes you removed the |left from the icon prior to that (in June). That means that sometimes I put a "|left" back instead of reverting your changes. My apologies, could someone more familiar with AWB than I am double check everything? (I'll try to check manually (that'll learn me) but it is very possible I'll miss some. -- lucasbfr talk 13:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lucas, I just did a quick trawl through your today's diffs and I can't see any that Hdt83 removed the |left and you undid it to put it back in. Some changes by Hdt83 didn't modify the |left so I'd say if it was already there then leave it. Can you give me a specific diff so I can filter AWB better. --Breno talk 14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I can't find any specific diff right now, but I remember checking one of my edits at some point and discovering I added a |left when rollbacking. I don't know if that's possible to check for "|left" in the source of all our templates? (I checked my edits by hand and couldn't find any other occurrences, I just fear that there might be more and we won't see it. -- lucasbfr talk 08:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked over my contribs from AWB and all of them are back to the original version. On WP:UTM there is a link above each box to show all the warnings as they appear and they all show the messages without the left. --Hdt83  Chat 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warnings

message: has been created, but we still need to uw-ify . We could either use the current one, or the shorter one that I've made here, and rename it to something like . R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really question the template, as what does "hard" mean? →AzaToth 19:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A hard block. As in, with autoblock not disabled, and account creation block on. Usually usernames are "soft blocked" to allow users to create new accounts that don't violate the username policy. But if it's obvious that they don't plan to be productive (ex. User:R is a terrible editor!), they should be hard blocked, and that's when this template is used. R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once someone is permanently blocked, no matter what it's for, I've always just left  Khukri 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I uw-ified your sandbox, what do you think? -- lucasbfr talk 08:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mixed up the two types of blocks, as I understand, hardblock, is a no second chance given block. →AzaToth 12:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need two seperate templates  is enough. Oysterguitarist 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a simple template saying the username has been blocked. We could say the same about . For uw-ublock, you could just use . I agree that we shouldn't have too many templates, but this one is frequently used by many admins because it's a quick way to block users since it doesn't require anything like amount of block or violation. Lucas, good job uw-ifying. What should we name it? I'm thinking . R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go for , it doesn't really matter since  will remain as a redirect, and that's the one we all use (no uw warnings in the block options). -- lucasbfr talk 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  uw- ify {{t1|UsernameHardBlocked}} 

message: I noticed some vandals like to blank their usertalk page after they've been blocked or replace the page with attacks directed at Wikipedia. I think the  template and any other similar templates  should have a notice or a line that says: Note that if you blank your usertalk page and/or issue attacks directed Wikipedia, you will not be able to edit the talkpage and thus lose your ability to request unblock. So, how about it? Hydrogen Iodide 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the current consensus is that you are permitted (though discouraged from) removing notices on your talk page.  Posting attacks is more actionable, but I think adding this language might put ideas in the heads of vandals.  I suggest simply removing attacks if posted and protect if they persist.--Kubigula (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't removing warning templates considered vandalism also?. Hydrogen Iodide 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, removing warnings isn't vandalism. Removing warnings is ok but discouraged. See removal of warnings. --Hdt83  Chat 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't seem ok here. Hydrogen Iodide 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look carefully at the edit history, that's an unusual case. GracenotesT § 13:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to block template 

message: I noticed that there wasn't a uw template for users who are using Wikipedia as a social network (ex. only making userpage edits, etc) so I created one. User:Hdt83/socialnetwork. Feel free to improve on it and discuss. --Hdt83  Chat 07:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, even though I would in the past said that this is more likely to be a personal message, I'm seeing more and more editors or more precisly people who edit only their talk pages, using wikipedia as some form of my space. I've seen some admins block and delete these types of pages under citing Wikipedia is not. If you a agree I imght tweak saying that these types of pages may be deleted, as they are not part of Wikipedia's goals. Khukri 07:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead and add that. I keep seeing more userpages in the mfds that are the users only contribs so it would be a good idea to warn them that there pages will most likely be deleted. --Hdt83  Chat 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the idea, I have been seening this lately so a template would be nice. Oysterguitarist 03:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea; made a minor edit to it. Hydrogen Iodide 03:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I created the uw-template and added it to WP:TT. Thanks for the comments. --Hdt83  Chat 05:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP not a Social Network warning 

message: Hi guys,
Having done warnings for nigh on 10 months I've removed myself from active in this project, to start working elsewhere. I won't be keeping an eye on the pages as I'll want to dabble, but any questions don't hesitate to ask. Traa fer now. Khukri 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enjoy the break! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hope you'll be as much of a help somewhere else as you were here. Oysterguitarist 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your hard work and leadership on this project.  Have fun dabbling.--Kubigula (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hope you'll come back as this project has come a long way with you in it. Thanks for all your work here. Good luck. :) --Hdt83  Chat 07:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good luck with working elsewhere and happy editing. Hydrogen Iodide 07:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for all your hard work.  Kudos to, Khukri!  --Kralizec! (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walkabout 

message: Since the stop hand icon is the biggest (30px) and used for the last warning. I have a new proposal that would remove that extra whitespace that occurs when the sentence gets too long and it also looks better and emphasizes the "last warning" part. --Hdt83  Chat 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting <nowiki><br></nowiki> after last warning and left float the stop hand icons 

message: Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the [ page history].[Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | &dbname=enwiki&machread=0 interiot's tool | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]
===March 2007===
# warning
# warning
* block
# warning
===April 2007===
# warning
#: comment about warning
#:: comment
# warning
* block
</pre>
New proposed layout
The numbered list is there and is a lot neater courtesy of the added space between each warning. The left float works correctly for all of the icons and everything is neat. This may be a good solution. Any comments? --Hdt83  Chat 05:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings 

message: # warning
#: comment about warning
#:: comment
# warning
* block
</pre>
New proposed layout
The numbered list is there and is a lot neater courtesy of the added space between each warning. The left float works correctly for all of the icons and everything is neat. This may be a good solution. Any comments? --Hdt83  Chat 05:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2007

message: I think we should change the  templates so they can be used for warning users for removing deletion notices from any page. I mean, deletion notices could be removed from any page, not just articles. If changed, the templates could look like the following below. Feel free to improve:
Level 1:
 Welcome to Wikipedia. It would be appreciated if you would not remove deletion notices from pages, or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of a page, please comment at the respective page instead. 
Level 2:
 Please do not remove deletion notices from pages or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. 
Level 3:
 Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from  deletion debates, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 
Level 4:
 This is your last warning.  The next time you remove deletion notices or comments from deletion debates,  you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 
Cheers, Lights 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see afd notices being removed often but I do see other tags being removed especially speedy deletion, so I think they they should be  moved. Oysterguitarist 07:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uw-afd templates 

message: The warning levels say that you will be blocked if you vandalize again but I think that should be changed to may because sometimes you will not always be blocked like if you gave a bad AIV report. Oysterguitarist 20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you mean instead of this:
 Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from  deletion debates, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 
it should be changed to this:
 Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from  deletion debates, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 
It sounds like a good idea for lv3 warnings. For lv4, it should still be "will" since it already says "last warning". --Hdt83  Chat 08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning levels 

message: I just created the single issue notice Template:Uw-3o, for editors who list a dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion in a wrong way. This happens to about three editors a day. I would be glad if an experienced user warning editor could look over and see if I've done this right. Thanks, User:Krator (t c) 18:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't really seem to fit the scope of the user warning project. The template is about making a mistake with a Wikipedia process. We're trying to keep the uw- space organized and small (i.e. only having the warnings we need). The template itself is good, but please consider moving it out of the uw- space (such as "Template:3o-mistake"). --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with R that this is probably not the right place for this template.  Perhaps the WP:3O page would be a better place to house it?--Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created single issue notice [[Template:Uw-3o]] 

message: I have created Template:Uw-recentblockwarn because often I see users who are blocked for vandalism of Wikipedia come back almost immediately after being blocked. Often, they vandalize the same article in a similar fashion before the block which indicates a persistent vandal. This template was designed for IP addresses where vandalism often comes back after a block and AGF is out of the question as it is obviously the same user (most IPs cant be indef blocked). What do you think of it? --Hdt83  Chat 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I havent any real objection, but a regular uw-4 with a special message added would seem to do as well. DGG (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think getting rid of the linebreak will make the template look a bit nicer visually. Hydrogen Iodide 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism directly after being being blocked 

message: As I've worked with most of you for a while and respect your opinions (even though I've made myself absent from here) I thought I get some input from you lot. I came across this whilst blocking someone today, and I know we've refused all templates of this sort in the past. Is this an MfD case or the fact it's in so call user space give it any protection User:Ratiocinate/admin-report. Thoughts please? Cheers as ever Khukri 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would first try just explaining to Ratiocinate the reasons we avoid templates like that and asking them to  it; if the username is an indication of character they will probably do so. If they refuse, then an MFD might be appropriate. Anomie 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted, very amiable chap. Khukri 14:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit OT but...... 

message: I proposed the addition of two templates to UTM on the UTM talk page.  I'm not certain which of these talk pages is more appropriate for the proposal, which follows up on various conversations here and there, so I am cross posting here.  Feel free to comment.--Kubigula (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new templates proposed for addition to UTM 

message: Alright, I get sick of anonymous vandalizers that continuously blank out their talk page of multiple warnings (about 3 or more). Although this isn't against policy, it is very inconvenient for users warning people since we have to look at the history of the talk page, or we sometimes think that this is a first offense while they actually should get a level 4 warning. Why not try something like this?
----
 Welcome to Wikipedia. It appears that you have had multiple warnings in the past that you now deleted. This change has been reverted so that users will not incorrectly warn you in the future. Although deleting your warnings isn't against Wikipedia policy, try to archive your talk page instead to make it easier to see your warning history. Thank you.
----
This would only be a notice, and would not get any higher than this level, and a user couldn't get blocked for this offense, it would just be a reminder to archive rather than blank the page. Leave your comments please! —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a waste of energy.  Talk page blankers will simply blank this as well, as I suspect they have very little concern over whether they get warned correctly in the future.  Talk page blanking does make proper warning and blocking a little more work, but it does have the advantage of confirming that the person has seen the prior warnings - which is helpful considering the ongoing IP talk page bug.--Kubigula (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. I didn't think about how they would just delete the warning too....—Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Idea 

message: I have recently noticed vandals, especially sockpuppets, like to place  on unblocked users, including users that don't have a single warning and do RC patrol. It seems like the vandal wants to scare users by putting that template on the user or user talk page. I think there should be a warning or at least a notice to users who intentionally misuse the template in such a manner. Hydrogen Iodide 04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People who do that most of the time of are trolls. If we go with a template I think it should be single level warning them about doing that and if they continue report them to AIV, cause trolls just want a reaction from others. Oysterguitarist 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, only admins are allowed to use  and any other variations of , right? Hydrogen Iodide 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypothetically, if an admin forgot to put a block template on a user they blocked, then a non-admin should be able to put up the template for them. I don't see this as a particularly common occurance, though. Most non-admin placements of block templates I have seen have been by novice users who think that putting the template on the page actually blocks the user. I've also seen novice users try the same thing with article (semi)protection templates. I think that in the case of good faith placement of these templates by new editors, a personal note about how only admins can do such actions with a link to the appropriate forum (e.g. WP:AIV or WP:RFPP) would be most appropriate. In the case of bad faith placement then I think that the  or simply the  series would work just fine. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Any ideas what the should be included in the message? Oysterguitarist 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the information icon, a stop hand would probably be biting. Hydrogen Iodide 02:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok I have started a template here it still needs work, feel free to make changes to it. Oysterguitarist 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I was leaning towards agreeing with Elipongo that a new template was not really necessary.  However, I have to admit that the proposed template could be useful as it's broad enough to cover misuse of any warning template, not just the block.  If we do go forward with the template, I think a single template is sufficient; escalation can be dealt with by the regular vandalism templates.--Kubigula (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: For a single-issue template, it really, really fails to assume good faith. This leaves it open to abuse and accustions-of-malicious-templating flamewars. GracenotesT § 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gracenotes--if there is a problem, this will make it worse. Better to write a very tactful message. 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you offer some suggestions? Oysterguitarist 02:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's bad-faith vandalism, call it bad-faith vandalism. GracenotesT § 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Gracenotes and DGG make good points.  The potential misuse of a warning template will either come from: (1) a new well-meaning user, who should get a true WP:AGF level one template; (2) a vandal, who can be addressed with regular vandalism templates; or (3) a "regular", who should receive a personalized note in this situation.  If we can't tell if the editor is a well-meaning user or a vandal, then we need to AGF.  So, we can either drop back and make this a true level one template, or simply declare this a situation that requires a personalized message.  It seems like it could be a useful template, but I have to say that I can't personally recall a situation where I wished I had this template available.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Go here and check this user's first three or four contributions. This is probably an example where this template could be used. Hydrogen Iodide 17:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: heres where it could be used. Oysterguitarist 14:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here (last two 8/5/2007 edits and 8/9/07 edit). Hydrogen Iodide 17:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here. Cheers, Lights 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably could have used it here. Oysterguitarist 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe here. --Hdt83  Chat 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's usually vandalism, but it can be a novice not understanding how templates are supposed to be used.  Even if it is vandalism, we have many templates that are really just more specific versions of the vandalism warnings - i.e. vandalism warnings tailored to the specific conduct (delete, joke, upv etc).  So, the question is whether it's worth having another template geared towards this specific conduct.  As there are a number of editors above who seem to want such a template, I think it's probably worth having.--Kubigula (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this template moving forward? It seems stalled. Hydrogen Iodide 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm planning to follow up on two proposed templates at WT:UTM - which I think has a bit wider audience.  I'll try to get to it tomorrow and cross post it here.--Kubigula (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is now a real template:  Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 03:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of warning templates notice 

message: See here Khukri 06:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  uw-own series up for TfD 

message: After seeing many blocked vandals playing and fooling around with , I think there should be a sentence added to the block templates. It should read something like: "Please note misuse of  will result in talk page protection and therefore you will lose the ability to request an unblock" or something like that. I think this will let the person who is requesting an unblock know that abusing the template will result in loss of unblock requesting. Comments? Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, I don't think they really care ;) I know it's written somewhere (in the WP:UNBLOCK page perhaps). -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to the block templates 

message: I've been modifying IP talk pages per the warning format in this article.  However, I have noticed the pound sign is not always creating a numbered list.  Here is an example.  Any ideas?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindEagle (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seem to be a problem with IE and how it formats the pound sign. Unfortunatly, IE is not completely CSS compatible thus many things often show up wierd on Wikipedia. 71.112.252.210 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed .  Prior to May, most of our warning templates included "|left" in the image tag, which often mangled the spacing of the warnings.  By removing these entries and changing the " :If this is a shared IP" line to "#: If this is a shared IP", everything sorted out correctly.  --Kralizec! (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Thank you.  --BlindEagletalk~contribs 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning format 

message: Hi. I was wondering if Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages was in the scope of this project. If so, your input would be appreciated here. Thank you. -Rocket000 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning templates for foriegn language use? 

message: The  thanks the user for experimenting with Wikipedia, and gently points them towards the sandbox.  This is as it should be: we do want users to experiment with editing, and hope that their experiments will encourage them to become productive editors.
However, when an article name is provided as an optional parameter, the template, as it is currently written, thanks the user for experimenting with that article.  In particular, the current text of  reads:
This seems a bit silly.  On one hand we seemingly thank the user for choosing Example as the page to experiment on; on the other, we later say they should use the sandbox instead.  I recently modified the template so that, given the same parameter, it instead read:
However, Khukri [ reverted] the edit, suggesting that I discuss it here first.  I'm therefore doing that now.  So, does anyone see anything wrong with the change?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of uw-test1 with parameters 

message: Anyone know which vandal tool keeps adding the If this a shared IP... comment to the bottom of every template. I'm now deleting them when I see them, as it messes up warning layouts, and if the statement is on the page once and it has been ignored there is no need to add it to every bloody template. That is what anonymous IP headers are all for. Khukri 12:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TWINKLE adds the comment. I've seen some users manually add the comment after a warning. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 12:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S'ok to have it once on a page, but whilst tidying a page just now I removed about 10 of them. Should be a header, I'll leave a message. Khukri 12:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not have to delete them.  The layout works if you just add a pound in font of the indenting colon ("#: If this a shared IP...") User talk:193.188.105.230 is a good example of this in practice.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I use Twinkle, an excellent tool but I've disabled the If this a shared IP... option, it's a real pain RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 11:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be surprised by the number of people that want to me feeling insulted because I gave "them" a warning 6 months ago :). That's the reason why I keep the boilerplate reminder. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 14:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it could be added to the  template that goes on the top of the page (under warnings) instead? (As an option, of course. This template is not used only for IP addresses.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think one of Voice of All's tools also leaves that message. Oysterguitarist 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It can be turned off by users by putting Twinkle config into their monobook.js file. The instructions on how to do this are over on WP:TWINKLE; the one you're looking for is called showSharedIPNotice and setting to false. Personally, I turned this off immediately as notices such as SharedIP at the top of the talk page explain things already. Having this boilerplate 50 times down through the warnings just increases clutter. --Breno talk 14:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shared IP babble 

message: * Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings", with the template  below the main heading.
* User warnings and block messages should be placed without line breaks.
* Messages should be removed without archival after three months or less, depending on the number of warnings. In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed.
* Optionally, the standardised edit summary is either ( maintenance ) or (maintenance, removed old warnings).
* Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings".  Note: If there have been multiple warnings, add the template  (or  if the account has been repeatedly blocked) at the top of the Warnings section.
* User warnings and block messages should be placed without line breaks. 
* Old warnings may be archived into page history when they are no longer useful.  Give consideration to the vandal's history when deciding how long to leave warnings visible.  Always note the archiving of old warnings.  In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed.
</table>
:Looks good to me.  I might suggest replacing "the vandal's history" with "the IP's contribution history", since IPs may be shared and since  it's not just the vandalistic edits that are relevant.  But that's just a minor detail.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With no objections and at least some support, I'm going to be bold.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good changes.  You have my after-the-fact support.--Kubigula (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's slightly redundant but think that the link on the s/wnote template is the one to fix/remove.  Just being dumped into the pagehistory is not very helpful to the future reader.  It's very hard to know where to start looking.  In a perfect world, you would scan the edit summaries to see when the archiving was done.  And sometimes that works.  But at least equally often, well-intentioned editors forget or omit the edit summary or use some cryptic comment that makes sense in the immediate context of the discussion but doesn't make any sense to future readers scanning the pagehistory.  The instructions for archiving into page history, on the other hand, give you a nice clean permalink that can be piped into a standard archive box or noted in a single line on the page.  From there, any future reader can easily find the version of the page at the point that it was archived.  I thought about boldly streamlining the s/wnote template a bit but wasn't sure where else or how else that template is being used.  Rossami (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree being dumped into the history isn't helpful. How about changing action=history to a parameter, oldid=X, where X is the oldid of the version of the talk page to link to. For example, adding  on this talk page would make the 'page history' link display as page history. --Geniac 18:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed wording 

message: I created the overview page many many moons ago, when I thought it would be possible to have a completely harmonised warning system. Naive I know, but some people still and I think will always prefer the fragmented system, be it because they don't like icons, the wording, etc. Recently a new editor saw this page and started to act upon my suggestions, being bold and all that. I don't want these ideas to cause a problem in future, so I'm tempted to delete this page, unless anyone has any objections. I could pass it by WP:MFD, but you lot have more idea about what this relates to than there. Cheers Khukri 12:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I sometimes refer to and update the overview.  Complete harmonization is probably not possible, but I think we can still do a bit more towards that goal.  There are some good suggestions on the overview page that probably ought to be implemented.  So, I think it has value.--Kubigula (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete page 

message: It seems like  and , both user warnings with long template names, could use some shortcuts to make it easier to use these two warnings. How about  for template abuse and  for false edit summaries? Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.--Kubigula (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we always do that, seeing as there  and the rest of the series are like that. Oysterguitarist 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears  could use a shortcut like  or something similar to that. Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 16:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Do make sure to tag them with  when you create them. Thanks :) GracenotesT § 23:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  - created shortcut for socialnetwork and added  to it. Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 03:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like there are anymore user warning templates that need shortcuts. Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 07:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template shortcuts 

message: Can we have some standard warnings for this category? There appears to be a non-standard one () but it could do with being brought within the folds of uw-* with relevant levels including a single issue warning. → AA (talk) — 13:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I use the uw-create* series for that; if it's a blatant attack page, I'd usually skip straight to  and use the additional text parameter to provide a link to WP:NPA or the like. --Darkwind (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How about ? Papa November 10:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings for creation of attack pages 

message: I've been looking through the proposed changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview, and would like to start clearing the backlog.  It seems like work on this has stalled recently.  Is there any reason for this, or am I OK to go ahead and implement changes?  I'll make a start on it, but I'm happy to revert if there are any objections.  Papa November (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been some previous attempts to implement the suggestions that were met with resistence by editors who preferred the old templates to the new ones.  I've been thinking we should allow more time for the uw system to get entrenched before implementing changes.  However, now may be a good time to clean up some of this.  My suggestion is to go slow and perhaps provide prior notice on the template talk pages.--Kubigula (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a couple and I'll wait to see if there's any objections.  For the rest, I'll take it to discussion first.  Papa November (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I created that page many many moons ago, with a couple of others, on how we saw the uw- system evolving. As Kubigula said many people don't like a standardised system, mainly because of the icons. so us trying to change them has become almost a point of principle making a full switch over nigh on impossible. I've seen childish reasons for people not wanting to use them, though in fairness alot is just preference for what they know, or they think the icons make them look too kitsch even though all the icons can now be switched off. I offered to delete the page a while back, but a number of editors wanted to keep it as an idea of potential mappings and synergies. Someone did put a message on the top of the page, though I suggest it should be re-written in flaming great letters to discuss any of my proposed changes before implementing them, as someone will be sure to get upset. cheers Khukri 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a subset of this, WikiProject Spam has started a review, but just for the uw-spam series. Comments welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/Warnings review‎. — Satori Son 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: What do people think?

Thoughts?
Asenine (talk)(contribs) 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible userbox 

message: I have taken the liberty of creating a new warning tag, aimed at pages being used to host personal website content (blogs, personal Wikis, etc.) which don't quite seem to fall under the exact wording of . Since I know diddly about tag design, I simply copied  and altered the wording slightly.
So:
1) Good idea generally?
2) Did I screw anything up?
--Calton | Talk 14:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the wording is somewhat better than .  I'd say the two templates are close enough in wording that we should try to design a version that covers both situations.  I also suggest posting this at WT:UTM, which has a larger audience.--Kubigula (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wording is better but the two templates could probably be combined. Oysterguitarist 15:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tag: {{tl|uw-webhost}} 

message: Hey, this looks like an intersting group. I love all these warnings and want to join this project. Is anybody allowed to join or only by invitation? Thx for answerin. Stupid2 (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All WikiProjects can be joined by anyone! –Pomte 10:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cmts 

message: Hello all. I had recently noticed that  had the |left in it again, breaking the numbered layout. I deleted it only to have it replaced in less than 24 hours diff. In examining the template's history it seems that it was put in there on 24 July 2007 diff , just a couple of weeks after we had all decided to eliminate all the |lefts from the templates. It was also removed once on 20 September 2007 only to have it put back in again in similarly short order diff.
The 24 July edit didn't say that the |left was being put back in. I just spent some time searching the archives and I can't find where we decided to put the |left into the level 4 templates. Did I just miss it? I did take a semi-wikibreak during and for several weeks after the :High Holidays, so maybe I did. All I know is that I've had *much* more success in getting sysops over at AIV to block users when I implement the numbered format versus any other way and I don't like to see the format broken. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I was here consensus was to get rid of all |lefts, and I still support it unless some other issue has been brought up. It's not consistent to keep it in some and not others anyway. –Pomte 03:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember having consensus to do that, seems that the user was trying to help and doesn't know about this project. Oysterguitarist 15:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After our consensus move to the numbered layout for warnings back in April,  removed  (almost) all of the hard-coded "|left" statements from the warnings at the beginning of May.  However considering the large number of warnings under the purview of this project, it is no surprise that a few got missed.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the hard coding back in, I didn't realize there was a discussion about it. I think the second line of text looks much better indented on the two final warning templates, and I don't really see the reason for them to be removed. The image on the level 4 templates is slightly larger than the others, so if the hard coding is removed it looks slighty awkward, in my opinion. Sorry for reverting, though, I didn't see anything on the talk page and probably should have looked here first. shoeofdeath (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it back again, it may help if someone runs awb through the list again to make sure a few others haven't come back. Khukri 07:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ok, but I'm still not sure I understand why. Since July the hard left has been in there almost the entire time with no complaints, and every time it has been removed someone has quickly added it back. What percentage of people actually use this layout? I would estimate it be a very, very small one. And looking at the April conversation I certainly don't see a "consensus move to the numbered layout". Can this really still be the suggested layout if no one uses it? shoeofdeath (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After long discussions on the topic, the current format was adopted in December 2006 .  My presumption is that the editors who have re-added the hard "|left" code are not aware of existing consensus on the issue.  While we have not directly discussed the layout in some time, there were no notable objections to it when a dozen of us were working on the numbering issue in April this year.  As to your final question, I have no idea how many people use the system, but regardless of how widely our layout guideline is used, it works very well at turning disorganized mishmash into neatly organized information.  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As per the suggestion from Khukri, I ran AWB through the list and re-harmonized all of the warnings.  In an attempt to encourage more discussion and preempt editors who feel that their version is better than the consensus version of the templates, I explicitly linked back to this project with every edit summary.  --Kralizec! (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In short no, not until the numbered layout problem is sorted (see here). And before it gets mentioned again the numbered system can't be just thrown out until there is some consensus on the matter. Though my personal opinion is I'm using it less and less these days as I'm spending more time tidying talk pages than patrolling. As there is only a few of us who adhere to this structure, maybe it's time to bin it. No point having a system if no-one follows it. Khukri 10:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the number list, see also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archive 1#April 2007 2 Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If things are not super busy and WP:AIV does not have a backlog, I will apply the standardized format to a page when I do the block .  As an admin, I certainly appreciate it when the editor's talk page is already concise and cleanly organized.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I confess that I abandoned the numbered format. I remember clearly when I decided to abandon it, as well. It became apparent to me that every time I formatted a user's page in the numbered format, a bot came by that didn't respect it. As far as I can tell, there's not a single bot warning users that uses the numbered format. Generally, what I do now is to reformat by month. That seems to be about as much consistency as bots and other users will tolerate. — Dave (Talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say that we should ditch the numbering format and put back the left alignment in the icons. The numbering format does not currently have consensus among most people. It may have had consensus in the past but as of right now, most talk pages being reported at WP:AIV do not follow this numbered layout. Going around reorganizing talk pages just because they don't follow a specific layout means that more time is wasted on frivolous details. A simple space break between each warning should be sufficient enough to organize warnings. --Hdt83    Chat 00:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I've placed the layout on the main UTM page to see if the usage of the layout increases. --Hdt83    Chat 02:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muchas gracias. — Dave (Talk) 03:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey all, I still think that the level 4 warnning icon looks ugly without the left align in ther. It dsonet seem like alot of people are using that numbered list so can we put the let back in at least for the stop hand icons? thx Stupid2 (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested format hasn't even been up at WP:UTM for a week yet for editors to see it. I'd say let's give it a month or two to see if usage picks up. I would like to see if people will start to use it now that it's on the main page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elipongo (talk • contribs) 15:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did we decide to put the |left into the level 4 templates? 

message: Is it just me, or do we seem to have two unconnected archives?  Our latest archive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archive 1 does not appear to be connected to our previous archive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archives. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconnected archives? 

message: What would everyone think of adding a diff= parameter to warning templates?  —Animum (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an issue with it but I think it would get little use as its more, and unnecessary, work. However, I could see it being used by bots if the bots are recoded for it.↔NMajdan•talk 21:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps as part of the optional parameter (i.e., )? —Animum (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that could be a nice addition, as sometimes a long diff can get cut off if you say anything *other* than the link; this would allow for a decent description and link. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall corretly, uw- templates should have coding in them so that you can append an optional message to the end of a warning.  Perhaps the diff can simply be placed there? --Hdt83    Chat 09:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a great idea, though not sure how many would use it but could be added. As well as being used in the 2nd pasrser, it could be intergrated with the 1st parser, instead of saying "as you did to article", it could say as you did [diff= here]. Khukri 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Then can I ask you to incorporate that into an optional feature of amelvand? :> —Animum (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diff link in warnings? 

message: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 2#Template:Notasocialnetwork with proposed merge to . –Pomte 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD on {{tl|Notasocialnetwork}} 

message: Quite often a joker edits several articles in a minute or two. Can someone please upgrade the warning template, so that, e.g., the syntax
: 
would produce smth like
:"Hey, you screwed up articles about Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha (and George W. Bush, but that's OK). Don't do this again or be pwned. - BOFH
Thank you, `'Míkka>t 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *If it is OK to vandalize the George W. Bush article, then why would you want to warn them?--12 Noon 2¢ 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: **This was a joke, man. `'Míkka>t 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiparameter warning templates 

message: Apperently Template:Talk-vandal1, Template:Talk-vandal2, Template:Talk-vandal3, and Template:Talk-vandal4 have not been unified with the uw- prefix. Is this another missed one, or is it suppost to be like this?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are an individual editors templates, not carried out by the UW project. If they are a problem as they are in template space they could be TfD'd if the editor was informed. There is no rule that all templates have to pass by the UW system, and is the main reason why we have the old system still in existence, as a few editors prefer to use those templates. Khukri 09:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-unified templates 

message: When we revert vandalism by someone who already received a level 4 warning, any other warnings make it seem like, "Oh, we didn't really mean it when we said that was your last warning," like the parent who says, "This is the last time I'm going to tell you" five times before taking action. What about something like this? Another big reason for suggesting this: So any admin responding to the AIV could see at a glance that the level 4 warning was for a violation earlier than the last one. 
When a vandal keeps vandalizing the same article, I've seen admins make the mistake of thinking an edit since the warning was actually the edit for which they'd been warned, in which case the admin fails to block. If the AIV process consistently worked as smoothly and quickly as possible, nothing like this would be needed, but that's just not the case. Sometimes it takes a bit for the admin to research the case. In the meantime, the vandal just keeps vandalizing. This isn't just about the message we send the vandal. It's also about the message we send to any other users who might see all those pages where somebody got a "last" warning followed by several more warnings.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Doczilla (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a similar template that was deleted on the grounds that it encouraged vandals to try to see how long they can vandalize Wikipedia before being blocked. Several other templates similar to the one you have proposed have also been suggested and rejected as well. See this archived disscussion for more details. --Hdt83    Chat 04:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that example you cite refers to a "next time" after previously referring to a "last time". Of course that encouraged vandalism. It said that the "last time" message wasn't really the last time, after all, which is my original complaint about the current messages some vandal fighters are posting after level 4 warnings. Doczilla (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There's no need for a template that says "I've reported you!". If the report succeeds, an admin will shortly post a block notice on the page, and if not you just look dumb. It also could encourage the more perverse vandals to go on a vandalization spree before they get blocked. If an admin makes the mistake you describe, a polite message on the admin's talk page pointing out the error with links to the (many) vandalism diffs should correct the situation well enough. As for the admin taking a few minutes to review the situation, would you rather they block first and ask questions later? Anomie⚔ 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My response from the last time this was raised. cheers Khukri 16:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past-last warning 

message: Guys,
I mentioned this quite a while back, but since the project was started how ever long ago, and it's over a year since we went live with the uw- system of warnings, I think the project should move over to WP:UTM. Most of the die hards here and in UTM have both pages in their watchlists, but for those not in the know it means we have two points of interaction to discuss templated warnings, which is never ideal. The main goal of having a standardised system has been achieved for quite along time, and the warnings are stable. 
Yes the old system does still exist, but you can never please all of the people all of them time, and leaving them where they are doesn't do any harm (yes I know of this), though we've tried to incorporate many of the points as possible, optional icons etc.
This project will continue to malinger along, and looking through the talkpages more and more questions are being addressed at UTM, so I think it's time we archived, moved it all over, merge any relevant parts on to the UTM page and then redirect. What do you think
Just a trip down memory lane for some of you as I was looking through the talkpages, look at some of the names who have gone.
*When we launched the uw- warnings here
*When User:Quarl for proposed the uw- prefix here
Cheers Khukri 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one got any thoughts on this at all? Khukri 21:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right.  At this point, this page and UTM address the same issues, so we just wind up with fractured discussions.  It's time to archive.--Kubigula (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of projects 

message: The current article says 'Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings".'. Does that apply even when adding a warning to a talk page for the first time? --DocumentN (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, the layout is only a recommendation and is only by a few editors and largely ignored by many (unfortunately), but mainly we try to keep the grouped by months at a minimum. Khukri 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: I’ve been studying these warnings when I have the time. The few I’ve looked at could be more clear about what they are, should include proof of what they claim, should explain how to improve, should all assume good faith, should be more polite, and should admit to being an opinion. I think they should admit to being an opinion -- because when someone says you did something when you don’t think you did, you feel like it’s a personal attack. I therefore will suggest ideas for improving the wording and usage of the warnings when I think of them. --Chuck Marean 09:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your points have all been answered at WT:UTM. Khukri 11:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm joining a little 

message: I've just been to Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview, that place seems pretty full. I would like to help on some of the redirects (such as :template:bv-->:template:uw-vandalism3) but some of those still seem to be in use, should I be bold and redirect them anyways or is more discussion needed?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are editors who prefer the old system and they have been a bit peeved about some of the prior efforts to redirect or delete the old templates.  I think we are at a bit of an impasse there, and I don't think boldness is the right move at the moment.--Kubigula (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, perhaps we should change what the overview says and remove the comments on the ones that shouldn't be redirected.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 05:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The overview was a page I created many many many moons ago when we started the uw- project to keep track of new templates and to what they corresponded. I offered to delete it a while ago but most editors wanted to keep it, if for nothing else as a record. The old templates are a point of principle to some and would rather rather walk over coals than use the uw- system. We've incorporated most of the arguments used for why editors didn't use the uw- system such as optional icons etc. though some like BV, have slight nuance difference in wording. If you wanted to be bold, read through the archives then, become familiar with the arguments, then start a discussion at the village pump about removing the old system. Having been at this for a couple of years now, personally I'm too cynical to try nowadays. Cheers Khukri 07:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview]] 

message: Hi folks! I'd like your opinion on something. Recently, I've been having some success with my own combined  and  template. Of the hundred or so people I've used it on, virtually all have stopped (same as happens with test1, I'd imagine) but some have gone on to be surprisingly productive good-faith editors. Also, some clear wrong 'uns, who I'd've expected to breeze through the uw-tests in quick time have stopped dead on getting it - and that surprised me.
The template is as follows:
==  Welcome to Wikipedia! ==
</br>
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia! 
Thank you for experimenting with with our encyclopedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. 
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
*The five pillars of Wikipedia
*How to edit a page
*Tips on starting your first article
*Help pages
*Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type  here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ~~~~
Pretty basic, but it seems to work. Could a version of this be folded into your uw-series?  or the like? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks spot on from UW perspective. We didn't touch the welcome messages, as they were outside of the remit if the user warnings messages. Though that has a warning from here included, I would just bosh it in with the rest of the templates at Wikipedia:Welcome templates and add it to WP:UTM as well anyway. Khukri 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good thing to have in the toolbox, particularly for a new editor whom you want to warn but who also has good contributions.  I recently noticed a similar template, , but I think one template of this kind is enough.  We could, however, use a shortcut for uw-welcometest.  How about ?--Kubigula (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly useful?