Template talk:Compromised account

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Compromised account

Template:Compromised account has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Maser ^(Talk!) 06:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skull & crossbones

How about using the regular Stop icon instead of the Skull and crossbones? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-10 23:22Z

I would have to agree, skull and crossbones is a bit much, and the regular stop icon is stock iconography. --Iamunknown 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oof. We see the stop icon everywhere! How about Image:Frettchen in blanket.jpg, erm I mean, Image:Nuvola apps kgpg.png or Image:Contact-new.svg. Gracenotes^T § 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Frettchen in blanket would be hilarious! But, for the sake of iconography, I still support a stop sign. --Iamunknown 00:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Although, {{sockpuppet}} does not use the stop icon, and nor does {{blockedsock}}. I would personally suggest Image:Nuvola apps kgpg.png. Gracenotes^T § 01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I kinda like the skull and crossbones, but if it has to change I think Image:Nuvola apps kgpg.png makes it clear what the template's message is... WjBscribe 02:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I chose it because it was the icon used in {{Malware-stub}}, indicating that the computer may have been hit by malware like a keylogger when I designed the template. Jesse Viviano 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point (I saw it was used in that stub as well). But compromised accounts often aren't malware-compromised; it could be other vectors of computer insecurity such as wire sniffing, or non-technical compromises such as shoulder surfing or finding a slip of paper with the password on it. Also that icon isn't universally recognized as representing malware. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:44Z

←deindent Quarl, you said it much better than I. We need a more recognizable image on the template and a more standard iconography. Gracenotes, I agree that Image:Stop hand.svg because annoying because it is so often used. I appreciate that you pointed out {{sockpuppet}} and {{blockedsock}}. Note that the latter redirects to {{Blockedsockpuppet}} which uses Image:Nuvola apps important.svg. Both Template:Blockedsock and this template are posted onto user pages of indefinitely blocked users. Taking that cue, I've replaced Image:Malware logo.png with Image:Nuvola apps important.svg. If anyone thinks that this change makes this template and Template:Blockedsock too alike, feel free to change it. As for myself, I feel that it should be either this image or the stop-sign image, as both are (as far as I know) the only two images used on templates indicating that a user has been either indefinitely blocked or banned. --Iamunknown 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"We need a more recognizable image on the template and a more standard iconography" ... why? It would be best to use an icon that gets the point across the quickest, wouldn't it? Gracenotes^T § 11:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would indeed be best to use an icon that gets the point across the quickest: I happen to think that the recognizable image and standard iconography convey the gravity of the situation most quickly. --Iamunknown 02:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(On the road again.... To WP:LAME...) it’s not sensible to convey the gravity of the situation in a split second, is it? I would prefer accuracy to angry mastadons. Gracenotes^T § 12:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you intend to revert me and then if I happen to revert and then we get angry and start reverting but don't know if we are reverting each other or ourselves...then yes, WP:LAME. Right now it's just much ado about nothing / I'm-not-sure-how-we-can-reach-consensus-on-what-appears-mostly-to-be-(link break) a-matter-of-opinion-on-whether-or-not-one-image-conveys-a-message-better-than-another-image. --Iamunknown 18:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. We'll have my icon every other second, and yours for the rest :) I can do that with ParserFunctions, if you want :) Gracenotes^T § 14:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't support that, it would absolutely hilarious! :D --Iamunknown 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

hm.... well, my image works on IE, where as yours appears funny. point++ (I doubt that we can get anything more out of this conversation...) I know! Let's start an RFC. I think that it's more important to convey the content that the significance through an image, whereas the significance can be easily extracted from the text... etc. Gracenotes^T § 20:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, that's a bit more serious. Two questions and an aside:

1. Which version of IE? I have IE7 and it appears fine in there; I know, however, that there is better support in IE7 for pngs, transparency, etc. Do other images on Wikipedia look funny in IE?
2. As a brief rehash of the above conversation (since it has been a long one -- I'm not entirely sure I agree or disagree with you now), what format for the template do you support?
3. An aside: I have thus far managed to stay out of an RFC. Hopefully that remains the status quo for a while.

--Iamunknown 20:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm joking about the RFC, believe me. IE6 is what I refer to, but that's only because it's an svg; the image I'd favor just happens to be a png. I would only suggest changing [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|45px]] to [[Image:Nuvola apps kgpg.png|45px]]. I am very sorry if you felt threatened or anything. At this point, though, it's been a long conversation (sort of), so perhaps sinking into apathy about it and not caring about the the wrong version would be best. Gracenotes^T § 20:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I created a derivative image that's based off Image:Nuvola apps kgpg.png & Image:Nuvola apps important.png. What do you think of it? --AAA! (AAAA) 07:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that image, AAA!. I think the addition of the warning sign would be good. --Agamemnon2 08:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Neat! Gracenotes^T § 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)