Template talk:Test/Archives/2005/11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a discussion archive created in November 2005, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

[edit] Parameter?

How about passing a parameter to this template, much like catmore1.

This might allow passing of a reference to the text, much like catmore

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test {{{1}}} worked, and has now been removed. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in articles will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

[edit] vandalism

is there a template for vandalism? - Omegatron 19:48, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Template:Test3! Hope this helps. -- ClementSeveillac 18:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it helps. But it should be more obvious that there is test1, test2, etc. - Omegatron

[edit] Old talk

Will an admin please make this change, which is intended to be more friendly to newcomers:

Thanks for experimenting with the Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox]] for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in articles will normally be removed quickly. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing here. Thanks.

Removed rather than deleted, so it can cover non-deletion of article situations. Getting in the thanks and please in early, since those words tend to cause positive reactions. Jamesday 18:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done. If anyone objects, I'm watching this page. -- Pakaran 18:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Jamesday 20:52, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] possibly

"Your test worked, and has now been removed or reverted (possibly by yourself)."?

I don't know. I've been using it for people who test and then revert their own test, too. does it matter? - Omegatron 15:07, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

erm, I don't think it's necessary to warn people like that, but if you want to, you can always create your own template (User:Omegatron/test or something). — Dan | Talk 16:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to use the welcome message instead, for people who revert their own tests. good? - Omegatron 18:33, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Whatever you like, really. I just use test for self-removed vandalism too (it says "has been removed" after all, that doesn't exclude them removing it themselves). --fvw* 17:46, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

many times i would like to use this template simply to steer a new user to the sandbox after a self-revert, but i don't like the "and has been removed". could the template serve both uses (responding to slop and self-reverts) by simply dropping that part? don't think it would lose anything. would sound a little less paternalistic too. ideally, i'd like to be able to use a template that combines this template and most of {{anon}}, since the welcome template says "thanks for your contributions" -- another phrase that limits applicability after somebody's just left junk somewhere (probably simply as a curious new user). SaltyPig 14:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

There's now a template for people who revert their own tests: it's {{selftest}}. --Blackcap | talk 00:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this template protected?

I didn't see any significant vandalism in the page history. Vacuum | tcw 02:07, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I concur. This should be unprotected. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 16:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All the other test templates but this one have been vandalized, though I'm not quite sure why. — Dan | Talk 16:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some idiot once vandalized the test templates by replacing Wikipedia with Wikifart. I think this might be why the template was protected. Scott Gall 09:25, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea: these templates, more than any others, are vulnerable to vandalism by being more exposed than any others. Anyway, why should it be unprotected? --Blackcap | talk 00:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really, no. They should be used via subst:, so vandalism won't show up on user pages. Furthermore, it looks like these templates are watched quite a bit, so any vandalism would get reverted quite quickly. JYolkowski // talk 00:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

IMHO, "since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly" should probably be changed to "since testing in articles will be reverted quickly". The basic reason is just that the former conveys a more uncertain feeling about our reversion policy, and may give a potential vandal some measure of confidence that they can do as they please. Also, the inclusion of normally may be instruction creep of a sort. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:33, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

I concur. I was bold and changed it. - Omegatron 15:51, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

More nits: reverted or removed should be changed to removed. There is no need whatsoever for the longer phraseology: it just bogs the writing down and reduces the concision of the message. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 19:00, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's why I came to this talk page, because I thought "removed" should be replaced with "reverted". The only context in which "removed" makes sense is if the person adds something. Much of the time, however, people are testing by changing something or deleting something. In these contexts, "removed" makes no sense, while "reverted" always makes sense. - Madd4Max 2 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)

Can we put the wording back to "reverted"? "Reverted" always makes sense, while "removed" makes sense only in specific cases. Madd4Max 21:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Can I add my vote of support for this? "Removed" doesn't make sense for 3/4 of the vandals I use {{test}} for. I'm being bold and changing the template, since this was brought up nine days ago and no-one's mentioned it. — Asbestos | Talk 10:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm not changing the template — I hadn't noticed that it was protected. I strongly agree with changing it to "reverted", however. — Asbestos | Talk 10:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone watch this page? — Asbestos | Talk 18:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's on my watchlist these days. Bill 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

So... does anyone have any opinion on changing the wording back to "reverted"? I'd be bold and change it myself, but I can't, so I have to keep asking here at the Talk page. — Asbestos | Talk 16:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, since nobody has said yay or nay either here or at the village pump, and since I can finally change it myself, I'm changing the wording to "reverted" instead of "removed". — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added Test0

I've added test0, since no other template seemed to fit this category of user (a registered user making controversial edits or deletions). --brian0918™ 16:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Using these templates to track vandals

It would be very useful if the addition of {{test}}, etc. were automatically to put the User in a category of "Vandals to be tracked", so as to generate a list of these people. What happens often enough is that the warnings are ineffectual.

I tried doing this, on the model of {{stub}}, but it doesn't seem to work, maybe because these are User Talk pages that {{test}} is applied to. Is this worth pursuing? Bill 13:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this isn't a duplication of the WP:ViP page. My concern is for people with dynamic IPs who end up with a "VANDAL" category message on their talk page. Another concern is that the size of the category could soon get overwhelmingly large: who's going to trim it so that we don't end up with hundreds of IP addresses here? Joyous (talk) 20:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The "VANDAL" message isn't great, no: maybe just Test3 and above, or something. On the other hand, WP:ViP is cumbersome. The duplication actually happens already: we put {{test}} — then we go to ViP — but isn't that what computers are for? OK, so instead of plastering VANDAL on their UserPage, would it be possible for TestN to trigger an automatic entry at ViP? The overwhelmingly large population, I just have no clear idea of how many; nor do I have an idea how the list would be pruned; but all of this may be worth looking at. Bill 20:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you should bring this up somewhere more public, maybe Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), to bring it to the attention of more people than those watching these pages. (For what it's worth, I understand your frustration about constant repeat vandals). Joyous (talk) 20:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is a MediaWiki extension called m:DynamicPageList that could handle this very elegantly, however, it's only enabled on the Wikinews sites afaik. I wonder if it could be enabled on here... Dan100 (Talk) 23:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome link

I reckon the welcome link should point to Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers rather than Wikipedia:Introduction. Intro is more about the basics of how to edit, which the possible-vandal has already figured out :-). Welcome, necomers would be a better link, imho. Dan100 (Talk) 15:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Header

Can we add the header Test warn 1 to make the test distinguishable from other text on the discussion page, as well as a count for easy reference of the last {{test}} used. I have added to the templates {{test2}}, {{test3}}, & {{test4}}, but this one is protected. Thanks ∞Who?¿? 04:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Header caused problems with editing. I'm trying a hard line and bold text for seperation. Example:

---

Test warn 1

∞Who?¿? 06:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Being the first template, I don't think this needs a header. It's distinguishable from the rest by not having a header. Dan100 (Talk) 16:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Not if it is the templates were used prior to that day. Then it would be jumbled with the rest. ∞Who?¿? 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please see updated proposal on Test 2 talk. ∞Who?¿? 08:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent update

I noticed that this template has recently been altered by Dan100. Although I can see the advantages of both Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers!, and by no means have any objection to the template pointing one way or the other, I do feel that the way this template has been re-worded seems a bit harsh, and could be interpreted as biting the newbies. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 15:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think that the "please" and "thanks" are an important part of this template. We want to assume good faith with this template. If no-one objects I'll minimally make the template more polite tomorrow. JYolkowski // talk 00:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's no evidence that vandals continue vandalizing just because they don't notice the warnings. Indeed, the big orange "new messages" notice is very difficult to miss. Simple text is best. — Dan | Talk 03:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Reverted"

I think the word reverted is Wikipedia jargon, and that a newcomer is apt to find it confusing. I prefer the older term "removed" (which doesn't necessarily mean deleted). moink 20:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to "removed or reverted", although I'd be fine with simply "removed". "Reverted" doesn't work after you've deleting a test page. JYolkowski // talk 22:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Reverted" isn't remotely Wikipedia jargon. "I've reverted your changes" simply means I've put them back to the way they were before. That's pretty standard and easily-understood English. I don't mind having "removed" in there, but strongly disliked it being only "removed", as this doesn't make sense when a vandal deletes information, which is quite a common form of vandalism. "Reverted" is an all-encompassing term which takes into account any changes that the vandal might have made. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Asbestos, except that I don't think 'removed' is necessary at all. The OED defines 'revert' as "to return to a former condition"; I think it will be fairly clear to a vandal that the page has been returned to the condition in which it was before he vandalized it. — Dan | Talk 21:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess the problem is that "reverted" is also wiki jargon that has a specific meaning that doesn't include everything in the english definition. How about "undone"? JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is that specific meaning? To revert an edit is to return the page to the former condition. Does it mean anything besides that? — Dan | Talk 03:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This template is also used when someone creates a test page. After the page has been deleted, "reverted" doesn't quite describe what has been done. JYolkowski // talk 21:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signing is a pain, well not anymore!

Template:Vw Template:Vw2 Template:Vw2a Template:Vw3 Template:Vw4 Template:Vw5

Template:Vw-n Template:Vw2-n Template:Vw2a-n Template:Vw3-n Template:Vw4-n

--Cool Cat ^Talk 09:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shared IPs / not biting newbies

For shared IPs, I think it might be a good idea to have an explanatory message to ensure that others using the IP don't get bitten. This could be an additional template to add at the top of the user talk page. I made a draft at Template talk:Test2. The idea is that this would be an extra template to add the top of a user talk page when adding the usual messages, ensuring that users sharing the IP with a vandal don't feel the messages are necessarily addressed to them. Rd232 21:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Getting rid of the named templates?

After reading Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Template_behavior_changes:_Default_and_arg_transclusion, I was wondering if it would be possible to have the -n templates combined into this, so that if a parameter was given, "This message is concerning the article (whatever)" would go in, but if it wasn't, the leading message wouln't either. Alphax ^τεχ 18:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've worked it out... At the start of each template, have something like:

{{if defined call1 | {{{1|}}} | testn | {{{1}}} }}

where {{testn}} contains:

This is regarding the article [[{{{1}}}]].

That way, {{test-n}} and the like are redundant and can be redirected. Alphax ^τεχ 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rationalise naming

Good (if it works). While we're at it, how about rationalising the naming a bit. We have a clear hierarchy of severity of disruption which it would be helpful to clarify [old template name in brackets where not obvious]:

1. Testing: test | selftest
2. Messing about: warn-nonsense [test2] | warn-removal [test2a] | warn-attack
3. Stop: warn-stop [test3]
4. Final warning: warn-final [test4]
5. Temporarily blocked: vandal-tempblock [test5]
6. Blocked: vandal-longblock [test6]

(Warn-attack is to be a new one relating to not using Wikipedia to attack people.) I think this naming approach makes clearer how the templates are to be used. Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 10:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hrm, see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Alphax ^τεχ 09:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was mostly concerned with "test" being an unhelpful name for some of these messages. We could be more ambitious and bring in some of the related templates like blanking and spam - to become warn-blanking and warn-stop. If we stuck rigorously to always using a level 2 warning (test2 etc) we wouldn't need the blanking and spam series at all. I'm not saying we should get rid of them, if others are happy with them and used to them, I just like a logic structure, and these additional aliases would make it easier to learn/remember what to use when. Rd232 ^talk 15:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Passing parameters back to a watchlist, automatically

Right now, unless there's something I don't know about (always a possibility!!), if we Test4 someone, it's just an empty threat unless it happens to catch the eye of an administrator? Or is there a page somewhere to which Test4 passes the parameter "UserName" putting them on an automatic watchlist? Bill 18:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing automatic, but you can report incidents at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; some admins watch this page (for instance, I do), and if a user is continuing vandalism after warnings then I would expect this to get an admin's attention soonest. Alternatively, report it at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't there then usefully be something automatic that would pass UserName to one of those pages or a separate page? Once BadUser has gone thru Test1-4, in order to be believable, Test4 should be acted on; and right now it's very haphazard. Bill 15:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Positive reinforcement

I'm attempting to restructure test messages, and other template/mediawiki messages to encourage useful contributions, rather than giving the newcomer no other option but to vandalize. This includes changing messages so they say "Please do this" rather than "Don't do this" (in the same way that "Keep off grass" or "Do not press the red button" don't work too well).

Note: Do not revert my changes, or you will be banned permanently! :) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 23:14

I think it's fine to make the templates a little nicer, but by the time we reach test5/test6 it should be obvious that the editor is trying to disrupt Wikipedia. Let's drop the newspeak - if people vandalize Wikipedia we should tell them they are vandalizing, not that they are "being counterproductive". Rhobite 23:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of RC folks that go straight from test1 or test2 to test4/5/6. I was one of them. At least with using the word "counterproductive", it suggests another way (ie, productive). I'm by no means a psychologist, and I think most of psychology is crap, but I'm sure about this. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 23:37

If you're sure that these changes are the right way to go, then why not discuss them beforehand? I think you would encounter less resistance if you brought this up on WP:AN before implementing your changes. It's not the end of the world if we keep the status quo for another few days, is it? I understand your concerns, but the word "vandalism" has a specific meaning here, and it does no good to euphemize it. I guess I'm just not that concerned about hurting a vandal's feelings. Rhobite 23:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happened to not biting the newcomers? It is pretty obvious to someone who blanks a page and adds "your moms a slut" that they are vandalizing, so to tell "you are vandalizing" doesn't do anything but identify them as vandals. This will only encourage them to remain vandals.

However, I understand your concerns about tests 5 and 6, so I'll leave them alone. The lower tests though, should not only be used more often but should be encouraging positive behavior. My only intention is to reduce the vandalism on Wikipedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 23:49

Are you sure that it's obvious? Some people see that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia and they are led to believe that there are no rules here. I have run into people who genuinely didn't understand that their vandalism wasn't allowed here. Yes we should be nice to these people, but we shouldn't tiptoe around the word "vandalism". Thanks for keeping off of 5 and 6. I also think test4 should use the word "vandalism", and probably test2 and test3. I'm not convinced that we're driving anyone away from Wikipedia by being honest. Rhobite 23:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

Alright, here are my proposed changes:

• {{Test}}:

  Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed or reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. We hope you will like the place and decide to stay.

  Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • The five pillars of Wikipedia
  • How to edit a page
  • Help pages
  • Tutorial
  • How to write a great article
  • Manual of Style

  Thanks.

• {{Test2}}:

  Please make useful contributions in the future. Your last change is considered counterproductive. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

• {{Test2a}}:

  Please make useful contributions in the future. Your last change counterproductively removed content that people worked hard to create. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. You could someday become a valued editor. Thank you.

• {{test3}}:

  Your previous edits are counterproductive. In the future, please make useful additions. Continuing in your current manner can only result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please comment below to keep the group intact. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 23:56

Brian, thanks for your willingness to discuss this, your unilateral changes on heavily used templates was always going to be fraught. Actually, I rather like these, providing test4, test5, and {bv} are not softened too much - at that point we would probebly be better off without the potential editor. My only comment would be with {test} - the 5 pillars bit seems unneccessary - and {test} is not always being put on a blan user page - there may be old warning or welcome messages already there. I think the link to the welcome page is probably enough. --Doc (?) 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Go back to the old versions. The proposed versions provide no escalation. You might as well post 1,1,1,4 and then block. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that people don't already go from 4 to block? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 00:18

Alright, then at least reconsider Test1 and Test2. I'll give in to 3 and 4. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 00:19

I like your changes to {{test}}, which is basically a nice welcome template for people who screw up a little. Rhobite 00:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with Brian going back to soften my opinion a little and then with Rhobite. The proposed changes to {{test}} to be more like the welcome messages are probably a good thing. The others are succinct enough to get their point across and should be left as they were originally. I feel that providing too long and wooly a message after the first one is less likely to get the vandals attention. Blocking is the logical step if 4 is ignored. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I generally like the new versions, although I don't like the phrase "You could someday become a valued editor". When I first read it, it sounded sort of tongue-in-cheek to me. I.e. I read it like "You could become a valued editor, if you quit being such a schmuck." I know you didn't mean it like that, but if I interpreted it this way others could too. Could that be changed to something like "Please try to discuss large removals on the discussion page in order to avoid angering other editors"? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the old versions. — Dan | Talk 02:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As you keep pseudo-reverting my changes, would you care to expand on what is wrong with my version of test2? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 16:34

I think that the change to {{test2}} is ok, but at {tests} higher, we need to tell them they're vandals and that they're going to be blocked. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I like a more welcoming tone early on. But at some point, test3?, there should be a stronger message. You never know what someone has in mind in the very first edit (does this really work?) but you need to get down to business pretty fast if they don't get the message. Rx StrangeLove 06:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave tests 2, 3 and 4 as they were, because people are used to using them as they are (changing them changes when they're appropriate). But I had recently thought that the first test, which is most plausibly going to lead to the contributor becoming a useful editor, should be more welcoming; I drafted the User:Rd232/anon-welcome template but it didn't go anywhere. I also created to more specific versions of test2 - level warnings: {{warn-attack}} and {{warn-nonsense}}, and a softer version of test2 may be a useful option for some contributions - {{test2-nice}}?. I had also wondered (on Template talk:test2 if the naming scheme couldn't be more helpful. Rd232 ^talk 10:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Making them more welcoming is good. The first should be friendly, because I suspect most first-time "vandalism" is actually sandboxing - i.e., someone sees "Edit this page" and goes "huh, wtf? huh. (click, type, save) oh ... um, whoops. HELP!" That's a good opportunity to say "that's ok, play here instead" or whatever. WP:BITE - David Gerard 10:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, as people seem to be in favor of changing #1 and #2, I'll be bold and make the changes (discussion isn't over; future comments will be considered). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 13:22

The blurb on the end of {test} is much too long, and leaves us really only using taht as a welcome template. If we are going to start at {test2}, then it no longer has the nice soft-and-furry feel that {test} does. Can we keep the new phrasing, but ditch the six(?!) pillars? -Splash^talk 17:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

And wikt:unproductive isn't a word. -Splash^talk 17:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I put "vandalism" back on test2. My understanding is that extended newbie experiments aren't considered vandalism until they've been warned that they are so considered, so I think that using this word on this template is important. JYolkowski // talk 17:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with having the word "vandalism" on test2, but I also really like the "friendly-izing" of test1. Joyous (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

My only concern with {test} as proposed is that it is too long to appear possibly multiple times on an anon's talk page. It's not at all uncommon for two people to leave it in quick succession, or for the same unproductive editor to receive it over a period of days. Compressing away the bullets is needed, I think, either into a sentence or into a single link to somewhere that contains them. -Splash^talk 17:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not everyone agrees, per the above discussion. Vandalism is what it is, and unproductive is a silly word. -Splash^talk 17:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't like these changes. "Useful" is far too subjective, as is "valued" or any other quality judgement. "Vandalism" cut right to the chase, no beating around the bush, no patronisation, no bullshit at all. Anyone could understand what was being said. Phrasing like, "Your last change is considered counterproductive" smacks way too much of "Your last manuever is counterrevolutionary." We sound more like a cabal than ever. The "valued editor" bit is silly, patronising, and makes us look stupid. The kind of people who are recieving these messages I highly doubt care about being a "valued editor." There was nothing wrong with these templates to begin with; they dealt with the vandalism problem efficiently and well. This sounds like instruction creep to me. What on earth was unwelcoming about "Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia," which is the beginning to the first warning anyone would see? Blackcap | talk 17:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an idea, based on Rd232's post: leave the test templates as they are (were, I guess, at this point) becuase they work fine, get the point across, aren't paticularly uncivil, and there is essentially nothing wrong with them. For those of you who prefer a kinder tone (which is grand, if so you please), then have these new templates at {{test-nice}}, {{test2-nice}}, etc. Blackcap | talk 17:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That does sound like a better idea, to me. -Splash^talk 17:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody will use these new templates. People have javascript setups that specifically allow them to easily use the old templates, not the new ones. There is no reason that discussion can't result in newer changes to classic templates, discussion such as the previous comments above. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 17:59

Oh come on. First, far from everyone uses JS for that. Second, such JS can surely be changed. Third, as much as anything that's an argument for not changing the templates, since people will expect the same results and suddenly the results will be different. Fourth, if only a few people use additional templates, so what. Rd232 ^talk 18:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Templates are allowed to be changed. They are not set in stone just because people are used to them. If people see that their favorite subst has changed, well then they'll have to be come active in the discussion, that is all there is to it. If only a few people use additional templates, that will mean more vandalism than needs to be, as I believe these will help stop repeated vandals. That's my only goal here, to reduce vandalism. I'm not sure what your goal is. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 18:26

I compressed {test} a bit, and cut it back to the raw stuff necessary to make a productive edit. Five pillars etc. aren't really needed as a simple pointer away from bad to good editing. They will get a long list of reading when the register an account anyway... On a different note, I just realised that {test} is protected but the others aren't. Any reason for this? -Splash^talk 17:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Per Cool Cat's edit summary suggestion that we review [1], I would like to suggest this alternative phrasing for {test2}:

Your recent contributory attempts are considered incommensurate with the aims and goals of the project you are currently participating in. Please offer beneficence in the future. If you would like to explore such enterprising ideas, kindly use the sandbox. Also, see the tutorial. Thank you.

-Splash^talk 18:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"Incommensurate"? "Beneficence"? You are kidding, right? Rd232 ^talk 18:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I was merely following Cool Cat's advice to use a thesaurus, after he suggested using the word "fruitless" instead of "inappropriate". You don't like my choices? -Splash^talk 18:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

How about

Your recent edits are not considered constructive. If you want to experiment please use the sandbox, if you want to learn more about making useful contributions please see the tutorial

-pgk^(talk) 18:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like test, not test2. Or possibly test1.5 or test2-nice. Rd232 ^talk 18:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Considered constructive is an appalling term to use. All a vandal then has to say is "well I consider them constructive" and you are screwed. For the considered constructive opens all sorts of unanswerable questions:

1. What do you mean by "constructive"?
2. Who decides what is "considered constructive"?
3. If there is a dispute over whether an edit is "considered constructive", who decides who is right: the author of an edit they considered to be constructive, or the person who installed a template insisting that the edit would not be considered constructive?

Using an ambiguous POV term like "considered constructive" should be avoided like the plague. It is too ambiguous and too meaningless, and open to too many POV interpretations. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)}

• What is your point? "Vandalism" is just as POV as "constructive". That's why they would BOTH LINK TO Wikipedia:Vandalism, so the tester knows what vandalism/unconstructive behavior is. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 18:38
• I agree with Brian on this, the current template says considered vandalism, which is just as subject to your arguments here. Who considers it etc. Personally I agree with you, and am not convinced of a need to change6, but since some do I thought I'd add an alternate version, which I felt slightly tighter than some of the other versions, imperfect as it is. --pgk^(talk) 19:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the new wordings are of any benefit. The test templates need to have a clear consise message. The replacement messages sounds waffely and bland. "Counterproductive" is a pointless word to use. Adding in a blank line might be considered counterproductive. Adding in "John in gay" in the middle of an article is counterproductive. Blanking an article is counterproductive. Adding in fiction into articles is counterproductive. But two, though embarrassing for Wikipedia can be spotted easily. One might not and could do enormous damage to Wikipedia's credibility. The template messages need to be clear, not bland. "Counterproductive" is the ultimate bland word that means anything and nothing. The current messages are far better. They are clear and consise, and their meaning unambiguous. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)}

• And they give the vandal no other option but to vandalize. Whatever happened to test messages being in response to tests, not in response of known unreformable vandals? Labelling them a vandal after 1 or 2 tests is not going to help them reform. "Unproductive" is meant to encourage productive behavior, I don't care how bland it is. Vandalism is unproductive, as is any other unproductive behavior. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 18:33
• Would you mind clarifying what's wrong with the new version of {{test}}? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 18:47
• Also, it is not productive to revert a version that people are generally in agreement over because you have suddenly entered the argument in opposition to it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 18:49

There is general agreement whatsoever. You unilaterally changed the form. People have clearly written above that they don't like it. Even those who say there should be a change are unhappy with your wording. Stop highjacking pages. BTW please don't break the 3RR rule in enforcing your version. You've already done 4 reversions in 24 hours. Technically you could be blocked for 24 hours for doing so. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)}

They were not reversions of the same version, but attempts at trying to reach some sort of consensus, unlike your blatant reversions. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 19:22

Ugh. I've just had to use (or try to use) a template on an IP talkpage. The wording was ridiculous. I ended up not using it because it was so ridiculous. There clearly is no consensus on changing the wording, much less changing it to that cringe-enducing version. I've put it back to the original version. (If there is agreement on what to change it to, then change it, but not before.) 18:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Put me down as opposed to the proposed changes too. Specifically in regard to Template:Test, I don't think it needs the second paragraph that starts with "We hope you will like the place and decide to stay..." ([2], [3]). As others have mentioned, it will look odd if it appears multiple times on a talk page. It already contains a link to the "welcome page." If you are the first person to put the Test template on a user talk page, and you think that they should also be pointed to useful pages for newbies, you can add Template:Welcome at the same time. FreplySpang (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the old version since there is clearly no consensus on this page for the new version. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• If you like vandalism and support vandals remaining vandals, that's fine. So be it. It keeps you busy and supports the common, unsubstantiated belief that vandals are all little kids who will never be productive. I won't ever be using these crap templates. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 19:24
  • Don't be a dick, please. We're discussing here. Please don't be like that, it's not helpful. Blackcap | talk 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Brian, since you apparently disagree and have tried and apparently failed to get a consensus to change the templates might I suggest a different approach, you can just great a subpage of your userpage and create your own versions there to use. That's what I did with the welcome templates (see: User:Jtkiefer/ipwelcome and User:Jtkiefer/welcome ), also please try to remain civil I think that claiming that doesn't support your changes supports vandals is going a bit too far. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Or even create new versions of the templates (e.g. {{test1n}}, {{test2n}}, ...). There's no harm in having multiple versions of the templates, and if they're just as good or better than the current wording then people will use them. I did this myself once; instead of edit warring over the image on {{test4}}, I just created {{test4a}} without the image. I think it makes sense to give people a choice of what test message to use. JYolkowski // talk 20:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The type of behaviour that prompts a {{test}} type response varies. Currently I don't think the test series of templates is flexible enough, especially at the test2 warning level; I created a couple for joke articles and attack articles ({{warn-nonsense}}, {{warn-attack}}), there could be more. This additional flexibility is far better than disrupting existing structures way before any consensus reached. Rd232 ^talk 20:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I wonder whether there would be any usefulness in creating several flavours of test templates to provide several options for all of the various possibilities of tests, and maybe rename them all to similar names (e.g. you could have {{test1e}}, {{test2e}}, ... for introducing intentional errors, {{test1k}}, {{test2k}}, ... for personal attacks, {{test1l}}, {{test2l}}, ... for blanking, {{test1n}}, {{test2n}}, ... for "nice" versions of the messages etc.). Comments? JYolkowski // talk 00:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that's a grand idea. Nothing stops anyone from creating useful templates like the ones' you're suggesting. Go right ahead... one way to do it is to start with them in your userspace, and then see how much you use them. If you like them and they pass the troubleshooting phase, create them in the template namespace. Or you could just go right ahead and create them now. Either way, more power to you. --Blackcap | talk 01:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: Cleaner-looking alternates?

Hi there, I'm fairly new, so, if this has been suggested, and summarily dismissed before, excuse me ;]

The current templates, imo, are worded wonderfully, but, once several are on a page, or an inexperienced editor (such as myself) adds one in the middle of the talk page, they end up looking hideous. I would like to suggest formatting like the following (remember, I am merely suggesting formatting, not the content of the header. I just threw what I thought was appropriate in there.)

{{User:Vilerage/warnem1|pagename}}

OR,

{{User:Vilerage/warnem1alt|pagename}}

[edit] Hi there, and Welcome!

This message is regarding the article pagename. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks.

I've noticed the tendancy to comment on the content of the blocks in bold. I'm not suggesting what should be in those, I only put text in there for preview purposes. Please don't judge this idea based on the big bold text, as I'm sure you folks will argue that one out at some other time, if this idea is accepted ;]. Anyhow, imo, I think a friendly reminder that draws the users attention, is better than one that, is improperly inserted (or inserted in a hurry). My suggestion, again, imo, would help alleviate this ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 08:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I remain adamant that boxes on any of the test templates should be avoided. They're irritating and unnecessary, and many talk pages are already cluttered with them already. Simple text is best. — Dan | Talk 02:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, not everyone has the same opinions about what looks good, cluttered, etc. That's why I gave the secondary option, of simply using a heading. IMO, either of the two would look much better, however, everyone knows the saying about opinions, so I figured I'd ask here ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 04:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'm strongly in favour of a box. A warning message is important and it needs to stand out on a page. I'm 100% behind the idea. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 05:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)}

I still think there's something to be said for the approach I drafted here, of a very prominent, very generic box to put at the top of a problem anon user talk page - especially if it's not already tagged SharedIP. The trouble with the existing templates is that they look like personal messages, which may actually give vandals a sense of satisfaction - like pissing off the cops kind of thing. A generic message at the top of the page, as well as a message specific to the current incident (highlighted using headers) is perhaps more likely to lead to vandals stopping, if it's clearer that what they're doing is totally unoriginal. Rd232 ^talk 08:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that's a good idea, about making the message more generic, as it progresses, I think, tho, that the first message should appear personal, for those that mistakenly vandalised a page.... --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 21:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two additional templates

I've come across a couple of vandals tonight that none of the templates really fitted adequately. One is where a user keeps coming back under a new IP to repeat the same vandalism ( 1 guy has been coming back for weeks to replace pictures of Pope Benedict XVI with science fiction characters with edit summaries saying they look alike — the joke is running pretty thin at this stage when so many users have to spend their time taking the 'joke' out over and over — ; another comes back regularly to replace user pages with pictures of penises, etc.) Putting a high test warning on sometimes causes problems because other users who aren't aware of that person's record see you starting at a high test and think you are being unfair. To stop that one ends up retyping on every IP they use the same 'you have been warned on other IPs . . . '. I've created a MultipleIPs template which warns people to stop and includes a line explaining that they have been warned elsewhere to stop before. It should cut out confusion over why a high test was the first one used on a particular page.

Another problem which seems to have cropped up a couple of times tonight is where people post obscenities (pictures of penises on people's pages, though that hasn't happened for a while, or tonight's user who thought it fun to replace article titles with 'FUCK' and 'WANKER'. I added a specific template called obscene to inform them specifically that adding in obscenities into articles causes offence, is seen as vandalism, and may lead to a block if they don't stop. Realising the specific reason why that edit is a problem might discourage some from doing it, while the threat to block might stop others, so it is a two-pronged approach. Hopefully whenever they are necessary these two templates will be useful and reduce the time needed by users dealing with vandalism to manually add in explanations to the main warnings every time. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 03:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] HTML comments

I have added HTML comments to the text of the more common test tempaltees, and i will get the others shortly. These have been added as per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Subst, to identify the precise warning tempalte that has been used even after the template has been subst'd or auto-subst'd. DES ^(talk) 19:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)