Wikipedia:Requested templates/Other/2007/February

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] I Will Have an Eye on You: Template for Vandals

I propose a template, similiar to a warning, which could be used in a vandal´s talk page in which the user states that he/she will be watching the vandal and monitoring his/her edits in case vandalism is done again. The vandal could end up not vandalizing anymore since he would find out that all his vandalism wouldbe easilly removed.

The template could be something like this:

I will have an eye on you and will revert/undo any future vandalistic edits from your part.
I will have an eye on you and will revert/undo any future vandalistic edits from your part.

Code: [[Image:Mona Lisa detail eyes.jpg|thumb|150px|I will have an eye on ''you'' '''and''' will revert/undo any future vandalistic edits from your part. ~~~~]]

Or maby something like this:

I will have an eye on you and will revert/undo any future vandalistic edits from your part.

Code: {{Userbox |border-c = #000 |border-s = 1 |id-c = brown |id-s = 20 |id-fc = Black |info-c = yellow |info-s = 8 |info-fc = black |id = [[Image:Mona Lisa detail eyes.jpg|45px]] |info = I will have an eye on you and will revert/undo any future vandalistic edits from your part.}}

--TomasBat (Talk) 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think the warn templates cover this well enough. The threat is overly hostile, in my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems a little hostile. It makes me think of WP:STALK and WP:NPA. Mike Dillon 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be used only after the vandal has been warned several times but continues vandalizing Wikipedia, before he/she is blocked, giving the vandal something like another chance to change his ways... --TomasBat (Talk) 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to actually tell them you're watching them; just keep an eye out. Being so confrontational creates a hostile editing environment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please don't do this. This reminds me of that "This user does not care that they are vandalizing the hard work of others" template someone decided to use in place of a warning. -Amark moo! 00:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you do not tell them that you are watching them, then it will be more probable that they will vandalize, since most vandals haven´t got a clue that a bunch of users are monitoring recent changes; but, if you do tell them that you are watching them, then it will be most probable that the vandal will not do more vandalistic edits, since he/she will take into account that his/her edit will easilly be reverted since someone is watching every move.

--TomasBat (Talk) 01:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Better than fixing a broken thing is to never have broken it. --TomasBat (Talk) 01:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Better than doing something that is wrong and then correcting it is to never have done something wrong. --TomasBat (Talk) 01:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't deny that it will stop vandalism more effectively. My issue is that it's uncivil, and besides, it won't ever have reason to be used. If someone's gotten to the point where it's obvious that they are a vandal and will not stop, even after being blocked a few times, they should be blocked indefinitely, not given a template saying that they'll be watched. And before that point, it's WP:BITEing to tell them that their edits are going to be watched. -Amark moo! 01:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at it that way, then it seems more biting to block the vandal completely from editing Wikipedia than to let him edit a bit more under certain limits/restrictions... Also, by using this template, we are giving the vandal one more chance to change his ways; it may seem obvious that a vandal will not stop under any circumstances, but... -who knows?-, maby after finding out that they are being watched, then the vandal might auctually stop vandalising! We should let the vandal know about how unprobable it will be that his/her vandalistic edits will last, and maby with this knowledge, the vandal will stop! --TomasBat (Talk) 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this less hostile template?

I will have an eye on you and will revert/undo any future vandalistic edits from your part; but if you were to make constructive edits in the proximate future, then my gaze would depart from you and I would leave you a smile...


--TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they are getting warns and blocks is the evidence in and of itself that they are being watched; if they weren't, they wouldn't be getting warned and blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we can make things even clearer for them... There is nothing wrong with that... What have we got to lose?... TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to lose, per se, but why should we even have policies such as Wikipedia:Civility if we're just going to ignore them whenever we feel like it? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Important Points:

  • Could you please tell me exactly how this template ignores the policy Wikipedia:Civility?
  • Wikipedia:Civility says that it is a policy that all users should follow, not have to follow... I don´t mean that we have to completely ignore it I mean that there are always exceptions... (Please notify me if there is something about the fact that it is obligatory to follow this policy that I did not note and, if so, please forgive me for my ignorance)
  • Are policies rules or suggestions?

Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")

(Note: If I were to be wrong, please notify me and please forgive me for my ignorance.)

--TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I won't respond to each point (since I think Gracenotes does a much better job of addressing this further down), but using the word "shit" in and of itself is not a breach of civility. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that I'm not convinced this is a good idea, the userbox-like choice of formatting would cause layout problems on user talk pages. If you want to make a template like this, consider using a full-width layout like {{repeatvandal}}. —Dgiest c 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

How about this:

I will have an eye on you and will revert/undo any future vandalistic edits from your part; but if you were to make constructive edits in the proximate future, then my gaze would depart from you and I would leave you a smile...

--TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing the format doesn't change the fact that it is unnecessarily combative and a potential violation of WP:CIVIL. There's an equally likely chance that a user who has this placed on their talk page will go "oh yeah? well fuck you" and start vandalizing more. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, since you said that there is 50% of probabilities that the vandal will vandalize more after reading the template, then there is also 50% of probabilities that he will stop (I quote from you: ´´There's an equally likely chance...´´)... Also, could you please tell me exactly how this template does not meat the guidelines stated byWP:CIVIL? --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that the vandal would respond in the same way to a standard warning... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording of Wikipedia:Civility (and actually, of {{policy}}) indicates that all users should follow it. Yes, should doesn't need must. The official Wikipedia page about policies and guidelines indicates that policies are
only more official and less likely to have exceptions
than guidelines. Guidelines are less strong than policies (for example, WP:AGF is a guideline, WP:NPA is a policy), but this is a policy, and there is really no reason why one should act contrary to either a policy or a guideline without a good reason. In this case, I believe that slight incivility occurs when you refer to actions that you will do (even conditionally). The promised blocking in a template like {{uw-v3}} or {{uw-v4}} is because of violations of (hopefully) previously explained policies and guidelines
TomasBat, the idea is very witty (about the shifty Mona Lisa eyes), but editors that receive it may become afraid of editing. Unequivocally watching another editor, even to see that he/she is making good edits, is intimidating -- I know that I don't like working at a computer if I'm being watched over my shoulder, regardless of what I'm doing). This may result in increased wikistress (usually symptotic of incivility; see the first paragraph of the policy); for a new editor, a hint of wikistress may cause freaking out via vandalism (along the lines of "fuck this project, I don't need this").
This problem of stress from a latent enemy (namely, the person that places the template), could be fixed by saying "your edits will be reverted", but then the first-person voice that is essential to the Mona Lisa analogy collapses like a house of cards (to whom do the eyes belong?), and it might as well be a standard unpersonal warning message. GracenotesT § 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the template states that the user will be watching the vandal until he/she starts making constructive edits; so, the vandal will be intimidated to make vandalistic edits (due to the eyes and the fact that the user s watching out) but will be encouraged to make constructive edits (due to the promised retirement of the gaze and the coming of the smile). The template promises the vandal-user reversion of vandalism (eyes), but encourages he/she to make good edits... What is wrong with that?

Also, if you take a look at the following template, you will notice that it also encourages the user to make constructive edits and notifies him/her that his/her vandalistic edits will be removed; similiar to the my proposed Mona-Lisa-template.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be 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. Thank you.

Also, the standard warnng templates also threaten the vandal, but promise that nothing bad will happen if constructive edits are made...

Also, I have got you a question:

  • Could you please tell me exactly how this template ignores the policy Wikipedia:Civility?

--TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make the incivility assertion, but I will try to explain it. If I'm wrong about it, perhaps EVula (talk · contribs) could clarify. As a side note, it may just be me, but I did not notice where {{uw-vandalism1}} makes any claim about a Wikipedian's reaction to future edits.

This Mona Lisa template, in my humble opinion, creates a "you-versus-me" mentality that is a part of incivility. If you require a quote from the policy, I would suggest

It is during these exchanges that community members may become uninterested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy".

Once again, I think that this is witty, but perhaps not appropriate in use. Happy editing. GracenotesT § 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

{{tl|uw-vandalism1}} makes a claim about a wikipedian´s reaction to future edits because it notifies the vandal-user that his vandalistic edits have been removed, henceforth telling the vandal, in an indirect way, how wikipedian´s will react to his/her future vandalistic edits. --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the direct quote sufficed. The confrontational, personal tone may go against the spirit of the policy. I merely believe that the template sets up a less-than-ideal view of constructive Wikipedia editing. GracenotesT § 23:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Aside... since there seems to be talk here
This is just a heads up about changes proposed regarding template deletion (speedy) processes and procedures. See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

   BTW... I like the mona lisa scheme, but I'm of the mind that confrontation is occasionally a good thing. The 'civ' question really is more whether the society sanctions such, and how it sanctions such. Consider the discussions and suggestions low down in here, which is on one of my back-burners. Also, section 'Missing empathy' in WP:Wh is food for thought. Regards // FrankB 15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I support to adopt this template and I think there's nothing that makes it violate Wikipedia:Civility. However, I suggest that we shouldn't abuse it too much, just use for tenaciously persistent vandalisers (for example, we can use it as the third or last warning etc.) Also, I'm most impressed by the Mona Lisa scheme and it'll be a pity if this creative idea is ignored. Maybe you should dilute the seriousness in the expression, TomasBat. Causesobad --> (Talk) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by dilute the seriousness in the expression? --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my words are so incomprehensible. I mean that, your warning seems a little too serious and it can make the users feel uncomfortable as if they are being observed at every turn. If you can reduce the seriousness, I think it'll be better. Causesobad --> (Talk) 14:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
To exemplify my idea, let's take a look at a very-lovely-creative block warning made by admin Phaedriel:
Dear Requested templates/Other/2007/February, unfortunately, your latest contributions constitute vandalism of Wikipedia, and it is with regret that you have been blocked from editing. Now, if you're willing to review your attitude, please post a message at your talk page, and I'll be most happy to help you reconsider your editing behavior, and the beauties of becoming a steady contributor. I'll keep my eyes on your talk page, I promise. Have a nice day! :)
With the same content of blocking but with this template, the user will feel less unpleasing and maybe have intention of coming back to contribute to Wiki. It's only my suggestion and I hope you'll renew your template because I do like the Mona Lisa idea. Causesobad --> (Talk) 15:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this renewed template:

Dear Requested templates/Other/2007/February, unfortunately, your latest contributions constitute vandalism of Wikipedia, so I have no choice but to keep my eyes on you in case more vandalistic edits come from your part, so I can revert/undo them to ensure that they cause no harm; but I promise that if you make constructive edits in the future, they will most likely not be reverted and you will have my grace, the grace of all and my smile...

Also, once the user makes a constructive edit, we could award him/her with this barnstar/medal:

The Constructive Edit(s) Medal
Due to your recent constructive edit(s), I award you, with a smile, this medal and highly encourage you to keep up the good work and leave forever the stage of vandalism.

--TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I remain utterly unconvinced at why you need to tell a user you're watching them. Having had a harassing editor tell me specifically that they were watching my edits, I just can't support any template that says as much.
Here's a concept: just watch their edits and don't tell them. They'll figure it out when you slap them with another warning after they vandalize some more. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that warning them of the consequences and giving them another extra chance, by telling them we are watching their vandalism, is better and seems less hostile than slapping them with a warning once they vandalize some more... Anyways, with the second medal/barnstar template, we are awarding the vandal and encouraging him to leave vandalism and make constructive edits, since the user finds out that when he/she vandalizes, nothing is won and his/her edits are reverted, but when he/she makes constructive edits, an award is recieved... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Section break 2

How about some sort of resolution: A number of people seem to think these are a bad idea, so don't make them in the main template space. Create whatever you want in your user space and use them responsibly. People who don't like them can just WP:DGAF and ignore it unless you start WP:BITEing or being uncivil. —Dgiest c 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 21:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Use the template when it's specifically appropriate, and perhaps don't give out the barnstar (give out a real barnstar that commends without mentioning vandalism, or actually write a personal message.) Unless anything comes up, Dgies' resolution sounds fine, even though I still don't like this template that much. [exeunt] GracenotesT § 02:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MLB Managers by team

There should be a more templates made for baseball managers. If you look at Joe Torre's page, you will see that he has a template for being a current manager, one for the Mets, but not one for any other team he has managed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.39.240 (talk)

That is not a request for the creation of a template. It is a request for people to add more succession box templates to various articles. If you know what articles you want updated, and what succession boxes you need added, you can probably just add them to the articles yourself. If you are not confident enough to do that, say exactly what additions you want here, like "Joe Blow was the pitching coach of Yankees from 1940-1942, he was proceeded by John Doe and succeeded by Bob Smith". —Dgiest c 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AUTOBIOGRAPHY

  • You need to provide more information. What should the template do? —Dgiest c 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Template 2 (Template:talkpage2)

Here is something I want it to look like. Use this background color 255, 0, 0. This template will actually take in a box. And say this (in blockquoted text).

The page you are visiting is NOT an encyclopedia article. You are actually visiting a mirror site. If you are on this page, this is a talk page. This is a place for you to sign your name and add messages. To sign your name, you must use ~~~~ for signing your name and timestamp, ~~~ for signing your namestamp, and ~~~~~ for signing your timestamp only.

Loop 101 Dead! 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This may already be covered by {{talkheader}}. (And "mirror" has a different meaning in the context of Wikipedia than what I think you're getting at.) Finally, red as a background color? Have mercy on my eyes! :) GracenotesT § 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: requester has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of User:Sklocke —Dgiest c 19:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)