Template talk:NPOV0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Documentation

Vandalism: {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}}, {{uw-vandalism4}}, {{uw-vandalism4im}}
Content removal: {{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}}, {{uw-delete4}}
Testing: {{uw-test1}}, {{uw-test2}}, {{uw-test3}}, {{uw-test4}}
Spam linking: {{uw-spam1}}, {{uw-spam2}}, {{uw-spam3}}, {{uw-spam4}}
Other behavior: see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.

Warning templates should always be used with the "subst:" keyword, as strongly suggested on Wikipedia:Template substitution. They are shown without subst here to reduce the display space occupied by this table, not to encourage their use without subst. For example, type {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}~~~~ (not {{uw-vandalism1}}) to warn common first-time vandals.

The levels of templates are:

  1. Assumes good faith
  2. No faith assumption
  3. Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist
  4. Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning


[edit] Usage

Usage Output
{{subst:NPOV0}} Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which all articles must follow. Wikipedia is a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia; it is not a place to argue a particular point of view. Thank you.
{{subst:NPOV0|Article}}* Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which all articles must follow. This is especially a concern at Article. Wikipedia is a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia; it is not a place to argue a particular point of view. Thank you.
*You can use {{subst:NPOV0|Article|subst=subst:}} to substitute the contained ParserFunctions.

[edit] Creation

I created this template to suggest to new users or ip users that Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. I think this template will be useful to combat subtle vandalism. Any thoughts? JHMM13 (T | C) 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsensical template

This template is nonsensical. The problem with their edits was that they were adding POV junk. We don't want them to "be bold"; they were bold before and messed it up. They have not necessarily made any contributions to Wikipedia—they were probably all reverted. Isn't there a better template this could be redirected to? —Centrx→talk • 08:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Strong an IF Verbage

The IF verbage of the template comes off as a bit too harsh in my opinion. This is generally a first warning and using words like "which you appear to have violated," should be more neutralized themselves. Maybe saying something like the following would be a little less intimidating:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia on the article example. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors, which your edit to example unfortunately does not appear to follow. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you!

Any other ideas?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Centrx seems to have corrected some of the tone, sounds much better.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)