Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Page change and merge 2 Template numbering problems 3 WP:TT 4 Ooooh 5 Are the old templates considered out of date? 6 Question on the formatting of the templates 7 Redirect old templates/user message? 8 Where should we place {{pinfo4}} and {{pinfo5}}? 9 So what do we use now then?? 10 Sigs should never be included in templates 11 Sigs & Numbering 11.1 Do you wish to have an included signature? 11.2 Do you wish to have the warning numbering system included? 12 Do not remove deletion notices? 13 Spam warnings 14 Whitspace in new templates 15 Anonymous user vandalism 16 Changes param needed for some templates 17 Fair use image warnings 18 Talk in article? 19 Protection status of these new templates 20 Page delete 21 Links to Template:TestTemplates 22 Problem templates 23 the removal of the numbering may produce strange result 24 Deprecated 24.1 Verror templates 25 Usage guidelines 26 Restructure 27 What replaced {{pinfo4}}? 28 Indef block and {{temporary userpage}}? 29 My work here is done. 30 Usage instructions 31 Template:Notenglish0? 32 What about {{test-self}}? 33 Include subst: in table? 34 Some of the new templates have names that are too long 35 Need a warning for adding opinion to articles 36 Template:Vandal tags 37 Vulgar Language Vandalism Template? 38 Is there a standard template regarding arbitrarily changing British English to American English? 39 Replacement for template is incorrect 40 Redirects 41 Recent changes 42 {{drmafd}} and {{drmspeedy}} 43 Alphabet vs usage? 44 uw-block3 45 Template for users or IPs listing their email addresses in talk? 46 {{uw-delete4im}} too harsh? 47 Order and timeframe of usage 48 Change to {{uw-vandalism1}} 49 change of 3rr 50 Removal of warnings warning 51 What template for "silly" vandalism 52 Void 53 Semi-protection 54 WP:OWN 55 Succession Boxes 56 "Use ??? 4" 57 Three-revert rule templates? 58 Question... 59 Defamation templates 60 Which tense for level2 61 {{uw-own2}} and {{uw-own3}} ? 62 Username discussion templates 63 test 2 heading does not represent test 2 content

Page change and merge

Hi guys, Just to let you know as previously discussed the WP:TT page will be changing on Monday to this page here. Also I've started a discussion on WP:UW about when that project is finished that it's documentation and all it's pages become merged here. The post is here and I would appreciate your input. Please reply there. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Template numbering problems

If you look at the name of {{blp2}}, you would expect it to be a level 2 warning. In fact, it's level 4. It would really help if all warning templates that were numbered included the number in the template name rather than merely a number.

Also, I would appreciate it if each template included text, not just a HTML comment, that a warning was Level X. I say that as I need to know which level to bump the user to when I warn them about something new. If I need to use a BLP template, which one will I select? Presumably, that will be one level higher than what the user is at now. That currently requires that I view the source for the entire page -- even though I only need to add a section. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:TT

The WP:TT shortcut still lists the old-style warning templates - does that page need updating to match this one? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it does, yeah. --Brad Beattie (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh

Shiny new user talk templates! And so well organized! Neat. :) (good work, those involved) · j e r s y k o talk · 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Excellent work. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Are the old templates considered out of date?

In light of the update to new templates, I'm wondering what we mean to do with the old ones. From what I can tell, they still exist and I haven't seen any notices saying "don't use this anymore; we've updated". Are they considered out of date, and we should all switch to the new ones, or are they still considered OK? Also, since I can't seem to find this anywhere, could someone tell me what the motivation was for making the change? Thanks! Heimstern Läufer 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The changes were mostly intended to standardize the whole system - previously, we had several templates fitting the same purpose and the same level. Now, they're a little more specifically tailored toward each thing. As for whether the old ones are out of date, I would assume we're supposed to start using these now. If an old template is in use on a talk page, leave it, of course, but don't add more of the old templates at this point. I think. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... please tell me we won't phase out the {{blatantvandal}} template? I can't find any template in the new list that performs the same function, namely, allowing you to start immediately with a serious warning. Heimstern Läufer 01:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Many non-standard templates won't be phased out. Some will redirect to standard warnings if they're redundant, but others will continue to exist outside the standardized system. That said, you can start out with {{uw-test4}}; the levels designate the severity of the warning, not a required order. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 06:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you don't have to go sequentially and all. Still, I've never liked starting with the third and fourth level warnings, as they provide insufficient context to the recipient. That's where the {{blatantvandal}} template is useful. Heimstern Läufer 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on the formatting of the templates

I've noticed that each of the new templates seems to start with a pound sign (#), which formats the whole template to fit into a numbered list. I assumed at first this was to keep track of how many warnings a user had received (#1, #2, #3...), but it doesn't appear to work. If that is the purpose of the pound signs, we probably need to work it so that it does work - if not, I would suggest we work on removing them, as it makes the templates look somewhat silly. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you leaving a blank line between the templates? This will stop the numbered list counting up correctly. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. I'll try it out. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But most times the previous warnings are in their own sections, which will also prevent this from working properly. And what if one previous message is a {{uw-spam1}} and one is a {{uw-npa1}}? The numbers would then not match the warning levels. This new "feature" seems somewhat problematic; I personally could live without it. -- Satori Son 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree, both for Satori Son's reason and because I don't like the look of the warning messages without a line in between them: it looks terribly cluttered to me. Heimstern Läufer 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, too. It isn't quite working for me. Lots of people warning with a new section header like "Your edits to article name" and then the vandal switches to another article. If I stick the second warning under the first section to get the numbers right, the section heading is no longer relevant. I see that the suggested method of issuing warnings is to make a section called Warnings and use dated subsections. The problem I have with this it that it differs quite a bit of usual practice where new messages are on the bottom of a Talk page. For IP vandals, it's likely to be okay, but vandals with accounts, it might not work so well. This recommended format will also not work with the bot-issued warnings unless the bots are altered to try to find the correct dated section. The numbers just become irrelevant or out of order. -- Gogo Dodo 05:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also problematic if users have bots automatically archiving their talk page messages. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just conducted a completely unscientific survey of about 30 recently "warned" user talk pages and didn't find a single instance where the number feature in the new warning templates is working as apparently intended. This "feature" seems like a solution in search of a problem, I perceive no value added. Just my 2¢. -- Opelio 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It places some kind of artificial importance on the accumulated quantity of warnings, as if someone with 6 warnings is necessarily twice as bad a vandal as one with only 3 (and vice versa). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not the biggest fan of the numbering, but it can work ;). The main problem is the headers... Can someone dig the discussion that was rejected about it? -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a good example, but most IP pages are much more complicated that that: a {{test1}} and {{test2}} three months ago, a {{spam1}} through {{spam3}} last month, a {{blank2}} and {{test3}} last week, etc., etc., all with different headers. The coded syntax numbering will almost always be a mess. Is there anyone who strongly disagrees with simply pre-numbering them based on the level of warning? (I will also look through the archives and see if I can find previous discussions on this.) -- Satori Son 14:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect old templates/user message?

Any thought being given to redirecting the old templates (like test, bv, and the like)? Or some sort of standardized message we can use to notify more experienced editors to check the page for the new standards? PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the non-standard templates will eventually be redirected to standard warnings if they're redundant; others will continue to exist outside the standardized system. That won't be done in the very near future, though. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Where should we place {{pinfo4}} and {{pinfo5}}?

Multi-level 4 for pinfo4 and block for pinfo5? Do they need a rename to fit with the current schema? -- Avi 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

bump: -- Avi 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So what do we use now then??

• when I used template uw-joke2 I got subst:#ifeq:{{{sig}}}|n| |Xiahou 02:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)} (both temp and error have brackets took them out to show here) Plus I have to type | then the article name. Before I would just copy paste the test template. I can go to 'click here to show warnings' but then I loose the good descriptions of what each warning is for. Plus they are different looking with subst in them. but they are easier to use by copy and pasting and don't have the error. So what are editors who are not reading every little bit of discussion and policy who just patrol recent changes supposed to use? Is there something black and white easy to read without searching thorugh discussions that has exactly what policy and warning templates to use?

  Try substituting the template with {{subst:uw-joke2}}, which is standard practice. You don't have to specify the article name. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• also the whole 1. thing before each warning? whats that about?--Xiahou 02:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  The warnings are numbered and block messages are bulleted. This makes it very easy to know when a user was blocked and how many warnings they have received since their last block; see the Layout guidelines. I'm not sure when they were added to the templates, though; that feature was rejected before and done manually. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• another thing I don't know where to ask this but a discussion about warning templates someone here should know. What is the guideline/policy on giving them when you didn't do the edit? Has happened to me in the past and just now 2 times in a row. I after checking the history to make sure it was me that changed the vandals edit go to warn him and someone else has. Is this acceptable. I understand as long as they are warned it matters. Yet isn't there just editor courtesy in not doing that to another editor. Faster than I could cut and paste it happens sometimes. Rather frustrating.--Xiahou 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  There's no guideline about warning a user someone else reverted, but it's generally considered rude and discouraged. Sometimes it happens by accident, though. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  It happens very often, since you can have 2 (or more) people reverting the same edit and not be aware of that fact (if you go back to the same version, nobody gets an error). With server caching, the vandalism can stay a few instants even after being reverted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  Would like to point out, too, there have been complaints of reverts with no warnings applied. Many first-time 'vandals' have their work reverted, with maybe an edit summary provided, but no personal 'advice' to correct their behavior or where to go to learn more. Afterall, main space edit counts don't come from providing warnings, but simply being the first to commit to reversion. I've made it a mission of mine to ensure that any reversion I come across in my patrol has a warning attached to it, and if an editor feels he may have been beaten to the punch (though five minutes between reversion and warning is overly generous), so be it . --LeyteWolfer 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I do feel somewhat the fool when I first went to RC patrol today I opened up the template page and the templates were not there. I found this page by following links. I just now noticed some editors using the old ones I went back to the original test template page and saw this at the top of the history -- 02:31, 23 January 2007 KarlBunker (Talk | contribs) (RVing back to restore the templates to this page-- So I guess I can go back to using those and take it that this project isn't 'offical' yet. Will they take over that page when they are?--Xiahou 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  The project gained consensus in its own space with heavy advertisement, but many users did not participate in the discussion and have objections that were consequently not addressed. Hopefully this will encourage more users to take a look at the WikiProject on user warnings. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  The 2 systems are thought to be working in parallel for a while, we didn't want to force people to change their habits if they don't want to :). The idea though, is to replace the old templates eventually -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigs should never be included in templates

I don't think any talk page templates should add you sig for you. That is a no-no. I keep having to go back in and remove duplicate sigs. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You can turn it of (maybe we should do the contrary and turn it on manually). I think the idea is that your sig wouldn't appear in the warning text otherwise, but below it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If adding a sig block at the end of a template causes the sig to appear on the line below that's just because the template is not properly written. Most common problem is to add linebreaks between the end of the message text and a noinclude block of documentation or whatever at the bottom. Avoid that and a "normal" sig should work just fine. --Sherool (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I really hate having the sig automatically included in the warning template. I tried about four times to get the syntax right here, then gave up and went to an old template. Could we just go back to the way things used to be, as far as sigs are concerned? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to subst the template - at least I think that is what broke it. You should be doing this with all templates on user talk pages, AFAIK. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, the templates break if you don't subst them. Maybe we should add a big red line asking to subst when it is included without being substed? -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, could we make it an "opt in" kind of thing, rather than an "opt out"? I don't want to have to always be checking templates, to see whether there's a sig included or not. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I always subst warning messages. I don't like the opt-out part. More typing for me. As for reminding users to subst, I don't understand how it works, but if you can get it working, great. You could make {{subst}} (or its replacement) obsolete. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigs & Numbering

Sorry I've been away over the last few hours I seem to be on a different zone to most of you. Thanks to all of your for your comments and feedback and for correcting the little errors. Apart from some wording issues on copyvio, and the use of vand4 with respect to some templates, the main issue in my mind is the numbering system and the included signature. Now neither of these are caste in concrete and I can remove them both pretty quickly. So can I suggest a quick straw poll as if we want to make good with this system, this issue shouldn't really last more than 24 hours. I realise that for some you, these changes of have jumped out of the woodwork, so thankyou for your patience and understanding. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you wish to have an included signature?

Decision remove the automatically included signature. I will remove them now. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - good idea, but lacks consistency with those templates that don't have a signature. I now have to remember which to sign and which are already done. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I am too used to entering my sig myself. The last thing I want is to remember not to enter it. If I tried, I might forget it when there is no "assistance". Will (Talk - contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's much quicker to not need to sign, but we need to make sure all the warning templates follow the same pattern. --Brad Beattie (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support: It'll be a pain at first, and we'll make mistakes. But I think it will be better in the long run. Heimstern Läufer 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The signatures are not intuitive, can break complex signatures (for example, I sign with "~~~" which places User:Pathoschild/signature), and are redundant with HagermanBot when the templates are substituted anyway. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support-Much quicker, but like BradBeatle said, they should all do it. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Once the implementation of the multi level warnings has calmed down in a few weeks, we will start looking at the single issue templates. What ever is decided here will be applied to the other templates as well. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per concerns of Pathoschild and Will. JoshuaZ 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Automates a tedious task. Consider that it may help more editors than it "harms". By the way, a review of the project page shows that all 79 new "uw-" templates are consistent with respect to this feature. — Opelio 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - HagermanBot doesn't seem to get them all anyway. On the other hand, it does make it harder to clean up after someone who has not substituted the warnings, but this can probably be automated once things settle down. Mark Chovain 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Per Ollie and Will, and because it makes it hard to do anything other than use the canned message. If I want to add an additional comment or something, that winds up going after the included signature. Helpful, but also some growing pains. If there are parts of this that can be fixed or will get better once other parts of the new warnings templates go into effect, why not wait until later before doing this? DMacks 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment just a question on the additional text, is this anything that couldn't be included in the second string of the parser? Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That would work fine. Sometimes I lump a few warnings together via one canned template with a manual comment "same goes for...pages". Or "also, please don't create the same article under multiple names" instead of the whole templated warning for each. DMacks 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Personally, I like it, but I find the oppose votes persuasive. Instead of having it part of these templates, would be better to raise the possiblity adding to My preferences an option for "Always sign automatically on talk pages"? Accurizer 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on above commment -- There are many times when I am replying to different parts of the post. Sometimes I find that several people have replied since I last checked. I then have to reply to each reply individually, usually with that previous post. So if A replied to me and B replied to them, if I reply to both, I want my reply to A with A's post. That then forces me to sign twice. Furthermore, if my lastest reply wasn't the last post (C replied to B), then I don't want my sig added automatically at all. Manual sigs are much safer. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Will, is your comment in response to Khukri's comment or mine? Thanks, Accurizer 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You. Please note how difficult it would have been for us to deal with automatic sigs in this location. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I understand your point. To clarify my suggestion, if it were a user preference, those who like it could enable it while those who do not could disable it. Accurizer 11:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I recognise it can be convenient. I used to always sign -- ~~~~, then today I changed my raw sig to include the -- to fit with the new spam warning templates so it would again look like -- ~~~~, now I find the vandalism warning templates are signing me as ----~~~~, and even if I changed my preferences again there would still be no space in my sig, which I consider important. I have been signing -- -- ~~~~ all over the place today. Please let me decide what my sig should be. Per User:Where above. Thanks. -- -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's really, really irritating. If it stays, I'll probably just stop using templates. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose some people (like me) has a doubledash (--) or arrow (→) before the sig, and other not.. _→AzaToth 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Avi 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's no reason to make signatures mandatory, and putting them inside the template gives signers less freedom. -- nae'blis 04:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you wish to have the warning numbering system included?

Decision remove the automatically included numbering system. I will remove them now Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too fragile; minimal gain vs added extra effort (for editors) to making work properly ("no extra blank line", "no additonal header", or other changes to talk page formatting), which is annoying for oldbies and raises bar for newbie editors. DMacks 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per DMacks - it's just too much added complexity. Good idea, just doesn't work within the limitations of the software. —Krellis 19:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per DMacks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral will be OK when people are used to it, I think. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per my reasoning given above. Heimstern Läufer 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Limited Conditional Support -- My support is limited to real warnings. Don't make messages that should be friendly look like warnings. Update: After having seen the new warnings in action for a while, I think the warning level needs to be part of the template rather than an <ol>-type list. Perhaps a note toward the end saying some like "This warning is level 2 (out of 4)." Otherwise, I prefer the numbering be removed. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per DMacks. — Opelio 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least on the "good faith" type messages. I'm not as sure about the higher-level warnings (although it seems like unnecessary complexity), but on the friendly messages it makes me feel like I'm WP:BITEing the newbies. BryanG^(talk) 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I was on the fence but BryanG convinced me. --ElKevbo 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would require a big change in the way we format user talk pages for very little return. Since all of the various messages aggregate to the total number, and warnings could have been removed anyway, you still have to check the page history to get an accurate count. -- Satori Son 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't think it's as big an issue as some people are making out, but I don't really see it as a big win either. Mark Chovain 22:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  Changing to oppose as per physicq (waaay below) Mark Chovain 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, it becomes confusing if you start with something other than a level 1 warning. Also, if a bot leaves a warning, the numbering starts over unless the next editor reformats the bot's warning (see User talk:68.187.1.241). If there is a decision to keep it, I would prefer specifying the level number in the template rather than using #. Accurizer 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- Regarding bots generating warnings, I think two items should apply.

1. All bots must use the same template we use, only with something like "Automatically generated message" tacked on.
2. All bots must scan existing warnings and use recent ones to bump up the warning level.

Will (Talk - contribs) 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per my reasons stated in other thread. Remove both numbering and bulleting. -- Gogo Dodo 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems unnecessary and several concerns have been raised above. Prolog 23:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: It looks funny in practice, and doesn't work unless all previous warnings were given with the exact correct templates. Very often, this is not the case, as in the link I provided. -- Renesis (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per many of the above reasons esp. DMacks. I also like to sometimes add a friendly hello before the warning message. This will now not be possible. -- -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The numbering/bulleting system is not useful at all, bordering on <sarcastic teacher's voice>"now, let's count how many warnings you have, and then after [insert number] we're gonna block you."</sarcastic teacher's voice> Also, not all warnings start at level 1, so may cause confusion when there are only two numbered warnings and a block. Borders on annoying, as a bullet point for the block notice suddenly comes out of nowhere for no reason. And I just noticed that I rehashed all the oppose rationales... --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose yet it seems not many if any are for it yet it was changed to these new templates on the main page with the numbers still involved. Are they staying even though it seems MOST are against it?--Xiahou 01:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as fast a blank line is introduced, the numbering restarts, and when the code is just a big groups, it's more difficult to see what warnings a user have bee given. _→AzaToth 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Avi 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. When you attach a number to a level 1 message, it changes the whole tone, from "Hey, thanks for testing out Wikipedia, and here's where you might want to continue your testing" to "This is your first warning". I think it undercuts the assumption of good faith that should be implicit in a level 1 message with the implication that "We're onto you, bucko, and we're counting your transgressions." -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you just crystallized my concerns for me. Proposal: All templates display a code inside the message (rather than with # at the start of the line). However, while levels 2-4 would use a number, level 1 would show "friendly message" instead (except for {{uw-vandalism1}} which is rather obvious that it is not "friendly"). Would anyone back this? Will (Talk - contribs) 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove deletion notices?

I could be completely blind and/or stupid, but are templates like {{drmspeedy}} and {{drmafd}} not included on here? Is that for a reason? -- Merope 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either. The description for the {{uw-delete}} series does say "Page blanking, removal of wikipedia content and procedural messages", which could be construed to refer to these (under "procedural messages"). But I really think we ought to continue to use separate templates for this purpose (i.e., {{drmspeedy}} and {{drmafd}} or something similar. Heimstern Läufer 20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I did the single level warnings table in an afternoon, the removal templates you mentioned can come under the deletion templates, adding extra details using the secondary string. But I had thought about these two as I was going through the 400 odd templates that are included in Category:User warning templates and didn't include them by mistake. In the long term however I (and this is just my opinion) think it would be better to have a template for the deletion of any procedural templates. Not having one for speedy tag, afds, improvement, or any other template that could be deleted. With regards to the two you mentioned please add them and this applies to any anyone reading this if your favorite template is missing add them to the single issue tables for now. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam warnings

Since all of Wikipedia now has the nofollow tag should we note that on the spam warnings to discourage spammings? JoshuaZ 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats a nofollow tag? --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nofollow is a tag which prevents google and other major search engines from counting a link for ranking purposes. See This report on the new Wikipedia settings. JoshuaZ 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How does the following wording sound as an added sentence "Since Wikipedia uses Nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings." JoshuaZ 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Short n simaple says it best in my opinion. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Whitspace in new templates

Having the

<!-- {{uw-npa4}} -->

comment on a separate line makes any accidental text added after the transclusion (for example, manually adding ~~~~ when forgetting it's already included:) get mis-formatted. For example:

{{subst:uw-npa4}} ~~~~

becomes

1. This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. DMacks 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

DMacks 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The newline before the comment pushes the text after the template onto a new line, so the space between the }} and the text goes at the beginning of the line. Moving the comment in-line with the actual template text makes the text after the }} go in-line with the template text, and gives formatting as one might expect for text in a line. DMacks 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do a mass find replace tomorrow, and also do any changes depending on the straw poll above. Cheers for the heads up. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I've sorted your problem on all the templates when I removed the sigs and numbering. Just do a double check please and let me know if there are any further problems. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user vandalism

Haven't had time to read through all of the discussion, and maybe it's in the grid and I'm not seeing it, but is there a new template to be used in warning IP addresses not to vandalize? Thanks Tvoz | talk 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the vandalism type, you could use uw-vandalism1 - 4, but please don't forget if you have any doubts on what to use, all the old temaplates still exist in the short term. See the project page for details. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes param needed for some templates

Could appropriate templates allow a parameter that triggers something like "A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me." to be added? The word "link" would link to the URL passed as the new parameter. You would pass a diff URL. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image warnings

How about templates for illegal use of fair use images? This would include putting images into user pages, templates, user boxes, etc. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk in article?

What is the equivalent of the old {{talkinarticle}}? I never liked how it forced you to let it add a header (which prevented me from using the + tab to add the warning), but I see nothing handling that role in the new system. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one at the moment as this warning comes under single issue templates. As I said above I went through very quickly the Warnings category and with 400 odd templates it was obvious I was going to miss one with all the duplications going on there. So for the inconvenience I apologise. In about two weeks once everything has calmed down here with the multi-level warnings, I intend to go back to WP:UW and restart the whole process again but with respect to the single issue templates. Now most of you are aware of the work we are doing I envisage that it won't take three and a half months to roll out the next batch, as I'm sure most editors here will get stuck in, and we can include, re-structure, re-name, standardise, re-direct or delete the remaining 300 odd templates. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we get an update here? Will (Talk - contribs) 07:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My advice is to be bold and remove the header yourself! :) --WikiSlasher 07:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just tried it. It seems that headers inside #if:'s don't work. I don't understand why. I even put some empty lines on either side of the header. That did not help. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with updating the status of the single issue templates? {{Talkinarticle}} might be replaced. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing really but you complained about a few times so I thought I'd just say "go ahead". --WikiSlasher 07:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates like that need a consensus. That is why I refused to make changes months ago. Besides, why change a template that might be obsolete already? Will (Talk - contribs) 07:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview and currently with {{Talkinarticle}} Khukri's plan is to "keep & modify" it. I assume when all the single issue templates have been sorted they'll be added to the page. --WikiSlasher 08:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection status of these new templates

I have made a proposal that these user warning templates remain semi-protected and not become permanently fully protected at some point. For those interested, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:High-risk templates#Proposal to keep new user messages semi-protected only. Thank you,  Satori Son 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Page delete

Would the next admin who wanders by delete this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/old_TT please. As Template:TestTemplates was deprecated and not modified I've changed all the links, and the one I created above isn't necessary. Easier to write it here than tag it, as someone will else will have to do more investigation than an admin here who knows what we're doing. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to Template:TestTemplates

discussion moved over from WP:UW

We really need to address the extensive amount of links (533) to Template:TestTemplates (and, I would assume, other similiar templates which refer to the outdated formats of user talk templates). We should have a bot change all links to direct to WP:UTM. But then again, I'm no logistical master, so my opinions may not be helpful. Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and look at it today. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I've had a look, the vast majority were user pages, talk pages of varying types, logs and archives. I've been through and done most of the live pages, such as helpdesk, WP:VAND, etc, but user and talk pages I don't think are particularly necessary for us to come through and change everything over for everyone. If you think it is then I'll get a mate with a bot to do it, as I ain't doing all 500 using AWB. cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the goals of the WP:UW project is to "Publicity campaign for project, to make users aware of impending changes." What better way than to have a bot go around and say "Replacing depricated template. Applying changes to User warnings, see WP:UTM" or something. Just my opinion. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem templates

discussion moved over from WP:UW

The 'mos', 'notcensored', and 'unsourced' templates scale up to notification of an impending block for vandalism... but the WP:VAND policy lists all three as specifically not vandalism. Having these as 'warning' templates of any sort is IMO a very bad idea as it encourages users to toss them at each other as a form of harassment. The new template designs use a single very common image and link only to heavily linked policy pages... making it very difficult to track their use. However, the one case thus far where these templates have been used without substitution perfectly illustrates my point... see User talk:Episodiod. Four 'warnings' for a single set of perfectly reasonable edits to an article. It serves no purpose except to encourage people to insult each other rather than discussing the issues. In this case the 'delete' series was also being misapplied, but that's always been a problem when people mis-characterize any text removal they disagree with as 'malicious blanking'. The same is potentially true of the 'tpv' templates if they start being used to tell people that they can't remove comments from their user talk pages. The mos, notcensored, and unsourced templates refer to content dispute issues and ought to be directed to dispute resolution processes... not false threats of blocks for vandalism. Because they aren't vandalism. The 'delete' templates might benefit from being updated to indicate that removals which are clearly not malicious also are not vandalism and should be handled through dispute resolution. And the 'tpv' templates might want to specify that they apply to '...removals from talk pages, other than your own,...'. --CBD 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll leave it a day or so, then I'll remove them unless anyone objects. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I've removed the link to {{uw-vandalism4}} from the three above on the table, if an admin could delete the redirects {{uw-mos4}}, {{uw-notcensored4}} & {{uw-unsourced4}} that would be appreciated. The follow up question is that if they are not vandalism are any of them blockable, if so then an actual level4 warning needs to be created, if someone would be so kind. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

the removal of the numbering may produce strange result

I thought you where going to replace # with * or :, not this can happen:

{{subst:uw-vandalism1|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-vandalism2|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-vandalism3|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-vandalism4|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~

gives

_→AzaToth 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not unique to these templates; you'll see the same behaviour with any template if you don't insert line breaks. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

true, but I feel it's better to know it will always start on a new line, so the alternatives are:

:{{subst:uw-vandalism1|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
:{{subst:uw-vandalism2|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
:{{subst:uw-vandalism3|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
:{{subst:uw-vandalism4|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~

that gives

or

*{{subst:uw-vandalism1|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
*{{subst:uw-vandalism2|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
*{{subst:uw-vandalism3|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~
*{{subst:uw-vandalism4|User talk:127.0.0.1|subst=subst:}} ~~~~

that gives

_→AzaToth 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want the templates to include automatic line breaks. I frequently insert comments before or after the template; including line breaks in the template would interfere with that. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There would be no problem adding comments after, as putting comment before the warning, I think that is not a big problem. I feel it's better to be able to ensure that no warning is placed right after a previous warning, thus creating an incomprehensive block of text. _→AzaToth 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the problem here...what's wrong with saying you need to hit the Enter key if you want a paragraph break, just like anywhere else on Wikipedia? Adding higher level formatting commands to the beginning of those templates (#, *, :) removes a lot of flexibility in how they are used. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just ran a check with the old test warnings, and as Jim said in this regards the new system is no different to the previous system. It was never my intention to replace the # with bullets, it was just about finding out what people wanted and removing them quickly if needs be, which seemed to be the general concensus. I can add line breask to them all or add any other symbol if you wish. Run a quick poll to find out what people think, but lets make it quick before we keep choping and changing the overall appearance. I personally wouldn't be in favour, but as ever it's what everyone else wants and I'll do it. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jim Douglas and Khukri: best to leave as is, which is the same as the current system where users can manually add a <br/> or : if they want to. Also, having an image on every template really makes things clearer even if the messages happen to run together here and there (best new feature!). -- Satori Son 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated

So are {{test}} and all the others now deprecated? Λυδαcιτγ 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm not entirely, the old system will still exist for some weeks to come whilst we work out the bugs and any syntax issues in the new system. Please remember this new system is only applicable to multi issue templates, that's templates you are likely to issue more than once with varying levels of warning. I have tried to list most of the more important single issue templates on the table project pages as well but it's clear with some 400 odd templates in total, some will be missing.

For the template you mentioned {{Test}} this you can certainly consider deprecated and, depending on the offence, if it is vandalism issue use {{uw-vandalism1}} or if you feel it is an actual editing test then {{uw-test1}}. Please bear in mind though that the test warnings are no longer the catch all for vandals, we have expanded the selection at your disposal and created the vandalism temaplate to specifically deal with vandalism. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, but as you can see I've put a deprecated notice at Template:TestTemplatesSmall, which is transcluded into many of the old templates. Is that all right? Λυδαcιτγ 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that {{test4im}} is also one that I used a lot (and there's no similar ones in the new warnings). - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't use {{test4im}} every day, but it definitely has its place. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. We still need this one and {{blatantvandal}}, and neither has an equivalent in the new system. Heimstern Läufer 00:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't we make im-versions of all lvl 4 templates? _→AzaToth 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I will respond later in detail, but in short Level 4 by nature should be IM, I personally think it's OTT to have a mission impossible style template of this is the only warning you will receive in my opinion it goes against ever thing we usually put in place about assuming good faith etc. If someone has been warned sufficiently enough in the past that they are in a position where they come back and vandalise and are thought to warrant an IM warning, then they already know the score and a level 4 or a level 4im is no different. In my opinion a level 4im or a blatant vandal should not be issued unless the editor has had at least a couple of blocks or it's a well renowned vandal IP, institution etc. hence could warrant having a single issue template for this purpose. Khukri 09:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a need, I created {{uw-vandalism4im}}. Tell me what you think! I personally am not a big fan of the im template but I can understand that in extreme cases it can be considered useful. I don't know where to put it in the grid though. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would much rather see level4 reworded so it meets both criteria. But I said above I think doing the whole fanfare of this is your only warning is excessive. The wording of {{uw-vandalism4}} This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked. says it all there are no other chances. There are no hard and fast rules about how warnings are issued and a block is achieved. If someone deserves a IM warning then you are already assuming they know they score, what they've done and you are just looking to expedite a block. To me a level 4 does, or with a slight tweak can say the same thing. What I wouldn't want to see is the variations of warnings that we had before, a set of warnings with a multitude of similar ones on the periphery, when a slight tweak to one can cover the two. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with two warnings on the same level. {{test4}} and {{test4im}} have two different functions even though they're on the same level, in that the latter is for use on vandals who haven't received previous warnings. The same goes for {{test3}} and {{blatantvandal}}. Earlier, it was suggested that these warnings should only go to users with a history of vandalism; I disagree with this. I don't think there's any need to assume good faith for vandals who vandalise Paris Hilton with sexually demeaning descriptions of her or add the phrase "F*** NI****S" to articles. That is where I use {{blatantvandal}} and {{test4im}}, and I feel they or an equivalent should remain in the new system. Oh, and I do like {{uw-vandalism4im}}, Lucas. Good work. :-) Heimstern Läufer 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, same would be for a {{uw-spam4im}} for example. I couldn't theoretically assume good faith if someone post viagra spam links to a page. _→AzaToth 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't like it, not because of the work Lucas put in or it's content, but because I think with a bit of effort we can get level4 to meet both requirements. But if we're going to go ahead with the im warning then in my opinion they have to be for every blockable offence, or we may as well tear up this system and go back to the old fragmented system. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is that the level 4 template specify it as "Last warning", what you want/need some times is the almost same template, but "only warning" instead. _→AzaToth 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning, I myself have searched for a tactical nuke template before when I've been exasperated with some vandals. But my fear is we are only re-creating the old system here, we create the im warnings which in itself I have no problems with, then someone will say oh we don't need X warning, then someone else comes in and adds another warning which only has another word different. I suggest having a look through the user warnings category at how many of the same warning there are with only a slight intonation differemce in 5 different warnings. But when they were reated I'm sure the intiating editor would have sworn blind that it was the most essential template to the running of wikipedia. I personally feel that whether you use This is the only or This is the last is semantics, they're going to do one of two things vandalise again or stop, and I don't think the wording will influence them. As I see it, we can create the im warnings but we have to create them for everything. We cen create a 5th tactical nuke level which would be a one of warning for the offence. or we can try and merge the two texts or even use the 2nd parser string to add extra details to the temaplate. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, you say if we make the im warnings, we need them for every blockable offense. For spam and vandalism, fair enough; I'm not sure if they'd be necessary or useful for other violations. With NPOV and BLP, for example, one should always assume good faith at first, I think. 3RR warnings are pretty much always immediate warnings. Heimstern Läufer 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And I see we've added some 4th-level im warnings. For my part, I am continuing to use the old {{blatantvandal}} in places, and will continue to do so as long as there's no replacement for it. So I guess what I'm wondering is, are we planning to replace it or not? And if not, oughtn't it be somewhere on the list of warnings? Heimstern Läufer 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally use the level2 templates instead of bv. And I sometimes add some personal commentaty at the end of the message when I feel the need to. We are people, not machines :). I personally think making a new bv would confuse the grid and we would be back on the previous messy state in no time. But that's just my 2 cents. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deprecating the test templates, why not just redirect them to the new ones? I find it much easier to type the word "test" than something unwieldy like "uw-vandalism". -Amatulic 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas: You see, I use bv as an immediate form of test3 (indeed, I've often thought it could have been called test3im). Several people seem to be commenting that the old system was "messy" when observing that there were multiple templates for the same level warning. I think this is a perfectly fine and in fact quite useful element of the system. The normal third- and fourth-level warnings assume prior warnings; therefore it's perfectly logical there should be alternate versions for use in extreme cases when there are no prior warnings. I don't think this element of the old system needs fixing, as I don't think is was broke in the first place. Amatulic: I've already created some redirects you might be interested in: {{uw-vand1}} and the like for the other levels. Heimstern Läufer 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Verror templates

Are {{verror}} through {{verror4}} now deprecated? They've been replaced on WP:UTM by {{uw-error1}} to {{uw-error3}} and {{uw-vandalism4}}. Should the verror templates be converted to redirects? --Muchness 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure whether any of the old templates are considered deprecated. I'm sure there's a large number of people who still use {{test}} and all its variations, and are unaware of the switch. Of course, a redirect would allow them to continue to type {{subst:test}}, but get the new version. Λυδαcιτγ 05:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've used blatantvandal many times, but NEVER 4im's. You can sometimes tell when someone is definitely vandalizing, but 4im's limit my and other editors' options the next time the person misbehaves. I don't want to report someone to AIV just because someone else placed a 4im tag. I really don't think there's a place for 4im's, especially since other warnings can serve the same purpose. I really hope the column is removed. Have I expressed my opinion strongly enough? Xiner (talk, email) 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. :-) And I'm afraid I disagree. I use 4ims rarely, but I do use them, usually if the vandalism includes something bordering on hate speech. I fully support the retention of these templates. Heimstern Läufer 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Usage guidelines

I created Template:WarningsUsage from Template:TestTemplatesSmall, to be used as generic usage guidelines with the new templates on the talk pages, documentation subpages, and/or noincluded into the template pages themselves. You can see it used at Template talk:Uw-vandalism1. Where should I use it? Λυδαcιτγ 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with your template, but another idea is to re-direct all template talk discussions here. Myself and I think Lucas has all the templates in our watchlists but I don't know of many others. We don't really want to miss anyone posting there, so it's better in my opinion they all come here, where you all may be able to help. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

But there are many problems which are specific to one template - I don't think we want them cluttering up this space. If you think some centralized discussion would be good, we can put a message to that effect on the top of {{WarningsUsage}}, which I just put on all the uw template talk pages. Λυδαcιτγ 09:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Restructure

I find the structure of this page rather confusing; it took me at least 5 minutes to find a template that I needed, which had apparently been removed. Templates that have been merged should probably be listed somewhere... in fact, a table with the old template names and their new equivalents would be awesome.

Would anyone mind if I divided the long list of templates into categories (content-related, maintenance tags, etc)? I have just joined WP:UW, whose goals I have long been interested in anyway. Does anyone mind if I try to merge WP:UW/O with WP:UTM without betraying the goals of WikiProject user warnings? If the goal of WP:UTM is easy access, this has certainly not been achieved... I might also suggest WP:DISCUSS, which may have already been done on the WikiProject talk page :(

One additional problem I have with the template renaming is that they take longer to type. Fractionally, yes, but when vandal-fighting, typing something that's much quicker is much, much more preferable. But oh well. Gracenotes^T § 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well for your last concern, I think it can be considered making "shortcuts" to the templates later on (for example uw-t1, uw-v1, ...). If we keep the uw there will be no risk the templates be mistaken for something else. What do you think? -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The merger of the whole project has already been broached but we will wait until after the single issue templates have been done. The main reason being that it's easier to keep development discussions together over there and not getting in the way of new users here wanting information on how templates work or operational discussions. The overview over in WP:UW is at the moment defunct and was copied over to the project page here when we went live. The overview page will be re-used when we start for single issue templates harmonisation. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What replaced {{pinfo4}}?

I know of a user that I think was telling me that someone posted their private information somewhere on Wikipedia. I told them about {{pinfo4}}, but didn't know what the replacement was. Can you provide that? Will (Talk - contribs) 08:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pinfo stays the same for the moment it will come under single issue templates. There is no varying level for this warning, it simple don't do it, the same as the legal threat warning. It will change in the next phase. Khukri 09:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the old system, we had {{pinfo4}} and {{pinfo5}}. The later was so admins could give a reason for blocking the user. Do both survive? Or should we use {{pinfo}} (no number)? Will (Talk - contribs) 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It will become a single issue template something along the lines of {{uw-pinfo}} with any extra text on the block being added as part of the parsered thingumy. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef block and {{temporary userpage}}?

Stop me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember that users that are blocked indefinitely are to be tagged with {{temporary userpage}} and their talk page to be deleted after a reasonable amount of time. Could an admin confirm this and tell whether it is a good idea to include either the template or the associated category inside the {{uw-block3}} template? -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My work here is done.

OK it seems like with only a few minor niggles left the templates are pretty much a go'er. So they're yours to do as you see fit, I'm going back into my little gnome cave back over at WP:UW to start looking at the single issue templates. If anyone comes in saying where is my such and such warning either tell them it's been nuked or to come and leave a message over there about they want a single issue template. Now you all know the plan I hope more of you will be involved with the single issue templates, so we can get the right look and feel across the board. Once this is finished, WP:UW will get wrapped up and I (or someone else) will merge the project and re-structure the project page here. I'll be keeping an eye out, but I'm not going to try and respond to every post as I have been trying to do for the last week. I'm going to have a wee break from it all but I'll be back soon. Traa Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh P.S. would someone please archive some of this page Template:Emot

Usage instructions

How come the option of {{ subst:Uw-vandalism4im | Article }} is no longer presented to the user? The current ones do not indicate this possibility. New users are not going to figure it out, IMO. Xiner (talk, email) 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As of now, {{ subst:uw-vandalism4im | Article | subst=subst: }} is preferred. But I'd like to simplify it to what you say; see above. Λυδαcιτγ 05:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What does the subst=subst: at the end of the template do? --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See above. Λυδαcιτγ 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Notenglish0?

Under this new system of warnings, what would be a good replacement for the Notenglish0 warning message? I recently ran into a user had been creating articles in Spanish, and I was suprised that I had to go to the old warning template page to find a message that covered the issue I was going to explain to the person. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What about {{test-self}}?

What replaces {{test-self}}? Will there be a replacement? Will (Talk - contribs) 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-test2}} ^{Khukri -} 08:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Include subst: in table?

As a newish editor of Wikipedia, I keep coming back to this page because I keep forgetting all the different template names. When I find the one I want, I copy+paste them into the talk page I'm using and hit save. But I keep forgetting to put in subst: in front of the template name and end up doing two edits on the talk page (one putting the template in, and another adding subst: in front of it).

Perhaps you could consider changing the table of templates to have subst: in front of them all? eg:

Vandalism	{{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	{{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	{{subst:uw-vandalism3}}

Obviously, they need to link to the template somehow, rather then a blank page - my limited Wiki skills couldn't figure it out.

Or am I just being stupid and everyone else usually remembers to use subst? --DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, most people will remember to use subst:, especially if it is pointed out on every template's page. Also, there are four (well five) levels, which would make the table look like this:

Vandalism	{{subst:uw-vandalism1}}	{{subst:uw-vandalism2}}	{{subst:uw-vandalism3}}	{{subst:uw-vandalism4}}	{{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}

which is too large to fit on many screens. As for linking, I don't know if there are any templates for linking while using subst:, so I typed the link the old fashoned way. -- kenb215 talk 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

True I suppose, it could become large. I guess my point is, people are no longer likely to notice that the template's page says to use "subst:", as they just use the table on the User talk namespace article page. There seems to be little reason now to actually go and read the template. Perhaps instead there could just be a note on top of the table in a largish font that says something alone the lines of "You should type subst: before your template"? *shrug* --DWZ (talk • email • contribs) 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

{{tls}}. Λυδαcιτγ 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the new templates have names that are too long

I think names like {{uw-vandalism1}} are too long. Can we get shorter versions like {{uw-vand1}}? Will (Talk - contribs) 09:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer uw-v1 personally. VegaDark 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also prefer uw-v1. I think the shorter ones are created as redirects though, so we could easily have both. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a warning for adding opinion to articles

What are we supposed to use for people adding opinion to articles? Like "The football team has yet to play him, but when they do he will be a pro bowler" It isn't vandalism so we shouldn't use that warning, it is unsourced but there is no way something like that could be sourced, so using the unsourced warning seems innapropriate. VegaDark 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Read Talk in article? Will (Talk - contribs) 09:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think {{talkinarticle}} is sufficient for the example VegaDark gave. We might need a sequence of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball/opinion (but not quite as harsh as the NPOV templates). Of course we don't want to clutter up the page with lots of different templates though. --WikiSlasher 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I use {{comment2}} several times per day; the equivalent in the new templates is {{uw-npov2}} -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Vandal tags

I might get around to updating this template sometime or if not someone else can do it if they like. --WikiSlasher 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is an example of a single-issue template, which forms the next phase of WP:UW, so you are probably better off checking over there. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vulgar Language Vandalism Template?

I feel that a vandalism template specifically designed for those people who use vulgar language should be designed. The levels could be determined based on the number of vulgar words used in the edit. Anyone agree/disagree? --Catalyst2007 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Λυδαcιτγ 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's very rare to see unwarranted use of foul language that isn't in the context of vandalism, POV or similar. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Dalip Singh/Archive 1. -- The Hybrid 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't if you meant this as a counterexample or agreement with Ollie, but it's a good example of why this template would be unnecessary. The unwarranted use of foul language by Son of Kong and Correctus was personal attacks. Meanwhile, you said "stop the crap" four times, with good reason - which presumably would earn you some kind of warning under this vulgar language system. Λυδαcιτγ 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically crap is just a name ;), but yeah, I was using it to agree with Oliver. It is only disruptive when it is being used in conjunction with other violations. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I only meant using it for cases where people just add vulgar nonsense, but I now realise there is a template for nonsense adding. --Catalyst2007 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a standard template regarding arbitrarily changing British English to American English?

This seems to come up frequently enough to justify a standard template: Someone notices that an article has "misspelled" civilization as civilisation, or color as colour, or whatever -- and he changes the word, with an edit summary of something like "Spelling correction". Most of the time, this is a good-faith, albeit misguided edit. When I've had the time, I've sent the editor a detailed explanation of why we don't do this. Is there a standard template that covers this? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I second the call for this template, if it doesn't already exist — I run into this problem all the time. Less frequently, I also see people "correcting" American spellings to British spellings in articles which use US spelling, so it would be good either if the template accounted for both or if there was one template for UK --> US and another from US --> UK. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually think we should use American, and not just because I am one. America's population is 5 times more than England (according to its Wikipedia article), so why isn't everything American English. If it has 5 times the amount of people, than you could estimate that for every 5 Wikipedia readers, 3 are American, 1 are British, and 1 are from other countries. I'm actually going to bring the up on the main page talk. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free, but we've been through this before. The consensus previously reached is that US spelling is used for US-related articles, UK spelling for UK-related articles, and "whoever gets there first" for articles that relate to neither or equally to both. See WP:ENGVAR. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Anyway, responding to Josiah, I agree -- the message should explain why we don't arbitrarily change an article written in one national variety of English to another. In my experience, it's almost always an American "correcting" British spelling, but the message template should be generic. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think we'll do a one off warning for this problem and the other MOS problems and then after that they'll get a standard MOS warning. ^{Khukri -} 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On this note I have just reverted two changes to the uw-vandalism templates, where someone has changed it to vandalize. Now I was the initiating editor and I use British English. But in this aspect I don't care, but Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, we should take this as a guideline not just on an article level but throughout this project and not have a mismatches. Everything is centred around British English just because of the biase of the original project members. But Please do not change these templates in a haphazard fashion. Either change everything over to American English or leave it as is. Regards ^{Khukri -} 15:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted one more, and sent a note to User talk:Urzadek. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a series of warnings for this, see {{Lang0}}, {{Lang1}}, {{Lang2}}, {{Lang3}}, {{Lang4}} and {{Lang5}}. John Reaves (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I wish I'd known about those templates here. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start this week listing all the warning templates that are in exitance, most probably on the old WP:UW overview page. We have the uw-mos multi level warnings, but I think a single issue template for each of the issues i.e. lang, date, royalty, etc will suffice and if the editor continues after this template is issued, then we start using the us-mos as a boiler plate. It's just an idea, but give me a week or so I'll list everything, run through them all find what is deprecated, or no longer required, then we'll start another review creation/review phase. ^{Khukri -} 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings"

Which is exactly why I changed 'each' template to the same spelling. Perhaps the reason for change should be that the spelling could be considered correct in other dialect, but you are saying that there is a 'haphazard' mix which clearly isn't the case. --Urzadek 18:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry as far as I saw you changed 2 of them but your contributions show 3 I'll look at the other one. If you were going to harmonise (ize) them, as per above the above statement, you would have re-named the warning itself and redirected the warnings to the new version. Also looking at the page we would have had a potential screwup as Audacity's new {{Templatesnotice}} would have been an incorrect instruction (due to the page name). This was discussed allbeit not in detail when we were designing these templates at WP:UW, and the few people who responded said British English. ^{Khukri -} 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the messages referenced from WP:UTM are currently written using British English spelling; changing some of those templates to American English makes them internally inconsistent as a group. And unilaterally changing them all to American English is contradictory to WP:ENGVAR. (Note: I am neither American nor British. As a Canadian, I personally use the "vandalize" spelling, so this isn't about my preferences; it's about Wikipedia policy and procedures.) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, correction; some of those templates do use American spelling. Khukri, take a look at {{uw-joke1}} and {{uw-joke3}}. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok they should be changed I'll sort it when when I come back, unless Lucas wouldn't mind. ^{Khukri -} 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Along the same line of thought, should templates themselves use British or American spellings? I hedged my bets when creating both {{Nohumour}} and {{Nohumor}}: whichever spelling you use when subst'ing, you'll get in the resulting text. Ben 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting compromise, but it might not be worth the extra work to maintain for all templates in the long run. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 07:50Z

Replacement for template is incorrect

{{TestTemplates}} refers to the wrong replacement. You make the replacement look like a template. However, there is no template. The link points to the new list. Some users like having a template for the list so they can add it to their user page. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it works (the magic of noinclude tags). Try putting {{Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace}} on your userpage. Λυδαcιτγ 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The template uses {{WP:UTM}}. That is different and distinct from {{:WP:UTM}}. (Notice the : in the second sample.) If you look at how {{tl}} formats the first link, it is adding the "template:" namespace. This is exactly what the template transcluder is going to do. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You fixed the red link. But that does not change how the server will evaluate {{WP:UTM}}. Unless you either put that colon (:) in front of the template name or create {{WP:UTM}}, it still won't expand. You will see "Template:WP:UTM" instead. Please try it for yourself. You must get the user to add that colon. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

I thought I might make our lives a little easier by adding some redirects to the new vandalism templates (I'm probably lazy, but I found it long to type out uw-vandalism1). I've made redirects at {{uw-vand1}}, {{uw-vand2}}, {{uw-vand3}} and {{uw-vand4}}. Thought I'd report it here in case anyone objects or I'm breaking some convention I'm unaware of, and, assuming not, so others can use these shortcuts if they want. Heimstern Läufer 01:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking of earlier - good thing you did, I wasn't looking forward to typing out vandalism in full every time I wanted to use it. --WikiSlasher 06:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

Excuse the humble opinion of an editor but I don't think the recent changes are productive. The previous version gave more information about which templates to use and why, and now it is harder to figure out which templates to use without clicking on each one to find out what it says. I frequently use this page as a reference when warning vandals and the like and these recent changes will make it harder to figure out which templates are which. Just letting you know. Ekantik ^talk 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the older revision just before the change. --WikiSlasher 06:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

{{drmafd}} and {{drmspeedy}}

Mmm I see these 2 series are now in the list. Anyone willing to redo them to comply with the grid and the layout? -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed their mis-alignment. The only remaining issue is that {{drmafd5}} and {{drmspeedy5}} are in the level4im column - they are block messages rather than the only warning. --Sigma 7 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Alphabet vs usage?

I feel the new alphabetized list (which puts vandalize and test at the bottom, and copyright at the top) is a bit more confusing than before. maybe we can make 2 alphabetized tables (one with the most used: test, vandalize, delete, and maybe 2 more and one table with the rest)? -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

uw-block3

Should {{uw-block3}} put the page in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages the way that {{indefvandal}} does? --Ed (Edgar181) 13:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we seem to both have had the same idea I am going to do it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your same question above. I looked into it a bit more, and I'm certain that it's worth making the change. I see you've already done it, so thanks for taking care of it. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Template for users or IPs listing their email addresses in talk?

Is there a template for telling users or IPs that it's not a good idea to leave their email addresses on a talk page, because Wikipedia is so often scraped, etc.? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We can create a single issue template if you feel this is necessary. Keep an eye on WP:UW over the coming weeks. ^{Khukri -} 12:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks — this does come up on a fairly regular basis. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it being a problem before but that's not to say it isn't. Once we get on a roll with the new templates, make a wording suggestion over there, and I think we can create a one off template warning about the posting of any personal details, not just e-mail. In saying that, there is a bell ringing in the back of my mind that I've seen something similar to this, that may be reworded. I'll have a look. ^{Khukri -} 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-delete4im}} too harsh?

I am a bit puzzled by {{uw-delete4im}}. How can blanking a page be that big to deserve an immediate sanction? -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe very bad faith troll (gnaa-type trolling) blankings of controversial wiki processes, such as AFDs or RFAs? For example, Parcoman was indefinitely blocked for this, except I think that it was the edit summary that did that ;] (side note: this user certainly has taste in his unblock requests). {{edit summary personal}}, {{edit summary personal 3}}, and {{edit summary personal 4}} used to cover this, and they have not had any sort of substitute thus far; I will create them the next time I have access to a computer (6 hours, about). I can't think of a circumstance where blanking alone would deserve a 4im, though. Gracenotes^T § 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I said above I'm not overly keen on the IM warnings as I feel level 4 can suffice. But I do think there is a place for this type of warning, be it merged with level4 or as it is now on it's own. Something like this shouldn't be used lightly, the issuing editor must seriously think about WP:AGF & WP:BITE before issuing this warning, it may be someone on a shared IP making a blanking accident. I personally wouldn't use this unless it was a vandal with a recognised MO, coming back after a ban and keeps blanking the Jesus article for example. I'm concerned there are a number of recent change patrollers who are using this warning or the other IM warnings as a first time warning. Vandalism is vandalism regardless whether someone just writes poo on an article or something even more sexually explicit. If we are going to immediately dish out the nuke level warnings everytime for vandalism then we might as well write off the above two guidelines and the hope of converting anyone from malicious editing to constructive editing. ^{Khukri -} 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen many instances of inappropriate 4im use, but I'll trust you that you have. One time I gave it to someone when he or she put approximately 50 instances of a large image of Hitler, one after another, in that day's featured article (to crash browsers and offend people); in general, if the vandal shows knowledge of the system and how to abuse it quite drastically, 4ims should be given. Hmmm.... I think that the uw-vandalism series might be best for blanking and replacing with obviously bad faith content; in a very very very very bad case of blanking and replacing, uw-vandalism4im can be used, and not uw-delete4im. Gracenotes^T § 18:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that the 4im's should be merged with the other level 4's. No one should be obliged to act on warnings someone else posted. The are egregious vandals, but there are other methods like WP:AIV. Xiner (talk, email) 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

uw-delete4im is some kind of gray zone, first when I created the other im templates, I had the view that for blanking, you must always in the first place assume good faith, but sometimes afterwards, I encountered a new user, that was blanking a couple of pages, he also hadn't been given any warnings, so I felt it was wrong to give him/her a "last" warning, so I created a only warning. Perhaps uw-delete4im could be removed, but the other im-templates I think should be available, as sometimes, you must show them that their actions are not tolerated. _→AzaToth 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been using spam4im for obvious spambot edits such as this. Otherwise, I rarely use 4im warnings -- only if I see clear malicious intent from someone who knows what they're doing. Also, I oppose merging the 4im's -- they allow us to word the message differently for people who have already been warned a few times as opposed to getting their first warning (i.e. "only warning" vs. "last warning"). Dave6 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In such cases, AzaToth and Dave6, have you ever found that the level-3 warnings say pretty much the same thing, except for the "only warning" reference? It is possible to block after another infraction in such cases. Given that the current 4im's don't mention the "multiple edits" nature of the crime, I think they have the same results, except that other people who see the 4im's may wonder if the warning was too harsh. Xiner (talk, email) 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Order and timeframe of usage

Must you always start with a level 1 warning and proceed from there, or with obvious malicious vandalism is it OK to start with level 3? Also, should a warning be applied every time there is fresh vandalism, even if it is in a short timeframe? --Joelmills 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all very much down to discretion - balancing how obvious the vandalism is with things like assuming good faith and not biting the newbies. I often go straight in with a level two warning if I feel stronger words are needed than level one offers. There is certainly nothing to say that you must start with a level one and proceed through, one level at a time. I generally do apply a warning every time I see more vandalism, but bearing in mind its important to leave a few minutes for the user to see the warning - they might only see the 'new message' box when they click submit on their next edit. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:VAND There are several templates used to warn vandals. They are listed [...] in order of severity, but need not be used in succession. If a new IP starts vandalising, I know some admins will not block if there is only a {{uw-vandalism4}} or {{test4}} on the page, no matter what the offence and sometimes will refuse if you have done only issued levels 3 & 4. A personal rule I try and abide by is every new vandal should start with a level 1 warning, from there on in another 2 before, the last being the level 4 before seeking a block. Any returning IP vandal should get at least 2 warnings. before seeking a block. I know this isn't scientific and exactly fair with shared IP and proxies etc, but it makes best of a bad situation and minimises unpleasantness. ^{Khukri -} 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

One exception of that rule is colbetrtism vandalism. If you encounter such, you might report it directly to WP:AIV _→AzaToth 21:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with that; it still depends on the nature of the vandalism. This person only vandalized once; I sent him this note, and that was the end of it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That might be, but when they comes in waves, the "shoot first, ask questions later" might be the good choice. All colberties I have sent directly to AIV have been blocked directly. _→AzaToth 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Aza, I think that's a very dangerous precedent to set. Colbert(isms) with respect to Wikipedia is a fad, pure n simple a temporary bugbear. As much as it is a pain in the proverbial it will disappear. But the actions we set now in response to this may last a long time. Most new editors who gain an interest in the workings of Wikipedia usually start their apprenticeship with vandal fighting. Now I'm finding I can't even get a revert in, before someone I've never heard of has jumped all over it, and these sort of publicity vandalisms just gets all hands on deck.

I know it's to put it bluntly 'a right royal bugger' when these vandalism campaigns happen, but it isn't the first and certainly won't be the last. We always have to maintain the moral high ground and don't alienate those who after watching his show join in but then they may have a look round and get the 'bug' and join in. Lets stick to what we do normally and not change it because of a bit of publicity. 50 vandals rebuked for 1 editor who joins in is always a positive. The vandalism won't last that long anyway, there's too many people on the case now. I think Dave's using the joke warning is a perfect use of all these temapltes we have set up. Cheers ^{Khukri -} 21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That might be true. It was mostly during rush hours, that you needed to go a bit faster, but yes, under normal circumstances, you should go the usual line. _→AzaToth 02:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think {{uw-joke2}} works well for first time Colbert vandals. I'll even use {{uw-joke1}} if they show some originality. Most of these people probably don't realize (or don't stop to consider) that they're about the 10 millionth person to make the exact same edit. Usually they stop. Anyone think I'm being too lenient? Dave6 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Change to {{uw-vandalism1}}

Per Khukri's suggestion, I am moving my suggestion regarding a change to this template from the template talk page to here, to try to develop a consensus. Specifically, I removed the following language from the warning, "Some of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed as they could be considered to be vandalism." This change makes the template very similar to the old VW (which I personally really liked). I like this change for two reasons: (1) it's more consistent with the level 1 assumption of good faith, while still being stronger than test1 (which does not talk about "unhelpful or unconstructive" edits); and (2) it leaves some room for escalation to vandalism2, which can introduce the word vandalism. As it was, I saw very little reason to use vandalism2, as the message was virtually identical to vandalism1; it made more sense (at least to me) to simply skip to V3. Any other thoughts?--Kubigula (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You made a good case and I can't really argue against it. The original version does read like the old vw, which I used very often, and so I would like to argue this change, but I can't find a way to yet. :) Xiner (talk, email) 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Before you decide to argue against it, I just want to be clear that I changed uw-vandalism1 to be slightly softer and more like old {{vw}}. That being said, please argue away.--Kubigula (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

change of 3rr

the current setup of 3rr isn't logical, I propose change it to a two level system:

Description	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 4im
3RR	N/A	{{uw-3rr2}}	N/A	{{uw-3rr4}}	?

Where the first one (level 2) is given after two reverts, and the second is given after three reverts, so the logic for level 4 is kept, that it's last warning, and that level 22 is caution about the 3rr rule. _→AzaToth 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How about just a single issue template? The level 4 one is a bit like 'Go stand in a corner, and wait to see if you will be punished'. Once someone has a single issue for 3rr (potentially after two reverts) then if they're going to get another message, it's either a post asking them to explain their actions and why they reverted again after receiving the message, or it's the block with the reason typed in. ^{Khukri -} 11:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have made a single level 3rr template now, at {{uw-3rr}}, giving this result:

{{uw-3rr|Article}}

gives

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

{{uw-3rr}}

gives

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

_→AzaToth 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll change the new overview page to reflect this. If you don't mind one little thing, could you change the will be blocked to maybe blocked as 3rr has some leeway in it for the issuing editor and blocking admin? ^{Khukri -} 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings warning

{{removewarn}} vanished on me. I tried to use it and it was gone. What is the replacement? For now, I am using {{uw-tpv2}} (or another TPV variant). Will (Talk - contribs) 09:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one, and won't be for the forseeable future.

You may want to read through here, here, here and here. Sorry I'm with you but ..... ^{Khukri -} 09:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What template for "silly" vandalism

I'm so glad to see all the different template categories we have for warnings. I'm wondering, though, what template(s) should we use for [Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism|"silly" vandalism] such as nonsense and profanity. Just uw-vandlism? Gutworth 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I use uw-test1 (or uw-joke1) if it's relatively inoffensive silliness and if they haven't been doing it a while (and no-one else warned them yet). If it's unnecessary profanity or they have been doing it a while, I go with uw-vandalism1.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Void

I see that {{void}} has made it's way onto the page. I don't really understand why - it's not really for communication with other users, is it? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just a placeholder for further single level warning templates. _→AzaToth 14:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Aahh, I see. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Please semi-protect the new warning templates, vandalism like this is harmful. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Is there any templates to be used for warning people trying to own a page? _→AzaToth 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find a template, but I couldn't. Squirepants101 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a new template for this. See Template:Uw-own1. Tell me what you think of it. Squirepants101 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It don't see it that often but when I did I had to type it out manually. --WikiSlasher 01:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good template, but people need to be careful using it. Note that, by definition, it is a single level template. If escalation is required, I think a vandalism template would be appropriate. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:OWN violations are usually by experienced users not newbies, so using a template will rarely be appropriate (especially one that says "welcome to Wikipedia")... WJBscribe 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise we might have to give the template-poster this template. Gracenotes^T § 06:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. What a beautiful paradox that creates! WJBscribe 06:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

Though it's kind of obvious that the warnings go up by one, on the template pages, should we add succession boxes? --TeckWiz^Parlate Contribs_@ 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it! Gracenotes^T § 02:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's at {{user warning set}}; a possibly more helpful derivative of what you had in mind. Now, one can see it in action at {{uw-joke4}}. Before I post it, well, everywhere, does everyone think it better to be above or below {{templatesnotice}}? Gracenotes^T § 06:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it. However, you might be able to make it simpler. I suggest that you replace the parameters for individual levels with three parameters: {{{Base Name}}}, {{{Max Level}}}, and {{{Template For Over Max Level}}}. In the case of the test templates, {{{Base Name}}} would be set to "uw-test", {{{Template For Over Max Level}}} to "uw-vandalism", and {{{Max Level}}} to 3. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Got to say I wasn't overly fussed when I first saw the proposal, but saw Gracenote put it on the {{uw-joke4}} temaplate, and quite I like it now On a side note I don't know if there is any reason why it gets removed, but on from an aesthetic point of view I would prefer to see a bit of space in the noinclude between the warning and Audacity's template notice. I've added it to {{uw-joke4}} as an example. ^{Khukri -} 10:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Khukri, I removed the space, and instead added it to {{templatesnotice}}... as well as a horizontal bar. Will, your proposal sounds ok, but it's almost too snug a fit to the project's goals; there is no customizability or room for special cases. Unless the structure for UTM is set in stone, with no variation occuring, ever, I would hesitate to do it, but otherwise, I don't mind making the change. I could also possibly integrate it into {{templatesnotice}} as three parameters, in addition to the {{template shortcut}} parameters? Gracenotes^T § 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice job, Gracenotes. I like it below {{templatesnotice}}. Merging the two would be great, although I think you would have to make some of the parameters named:

{{templatesnotice|s1=uw-v1|s2=uw-vand1|series=uw-vandalism|1|2|3|4|4im}}

or

{{templatesnotice|uw-v1|uw-vand1|series=uw-vandalism|a=1|b=2|c=3|d=4|e=4im}}

By the way, Khukri, I can't take credit for Templatesnotice — it's yours (WP:OWN and all to the side). -Audacity 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well old age n all that ;). Anyway Gracenote, spot on that's exactly the sort of thing I meant, good stuff. ^{Khukri -} 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. If a template is added or removed from series, all templates in that series need to be edited to reflect that; however, these series are more or less set in stone. Thanks for your suggestion, Will; I ultimately followed it, and in retrospect it would have been so much more annoying to do it the other way. If anyone is having trouble with the source code for {{user warning set}} (or its placement in {{templatesnotice}}) and wants to suggest something, feel free to <khukri>give me a shout</khukri>. Gracenotes^T § 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is why I suggested it. I knew that it would make the template more complex, but the calls would be simpler. I find it very easy to put the complexity into the template so that more people understand how to use that template and they make fewer mistakes. (As a bonus, I make fewer mistakes that way. :D ) Will (Talk - contribs) 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Use ??? 4"

How come in the table, it doesn't say for some warnings, it says N/A. Shouldn't it say "use [warning type]4 ? --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@ 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope because some warnings aren't blockable like agf, etc. ^{Khukri -} 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What do we do with users that repeatedly ignore AGF warnings? Will (Talk - contribs) 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not AGF is not as clear cut as someone putting unsourced material on here or vandalism for instance. The realms and definition of AGF are not very obvious, it's an attitude not a quantifiable characteristic. It's not a very clear cut warning and ambiguous at best, mainly because AGF depends on the viewers standpoint and bias, and that they could be misinterpreting what another editor is trying to say. Something like this usually ends up one of three ways, if it's over an article one side usually gets pinged for 3rr, it can get resolved by one party being more patient and ignoring the rantings and talking through the arguments and not repsonding. Most importantly if there was no concensus achieved, ask any friendly admin, or as a last resort, in my opinion, go to WP:DR. ^{Khukri -} 09:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule templates?

Can warnings {{3RR}}, {{3RR3-n}} and {{3RR4}} still be used on talk pages? The reason I'm asking this is because on the page, the warnings have been replaced by {{uw-3rr}}. Squirepants101 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the talk page things change quick round here ;) Read here. Any questions give me a shout. ^{Khukri -} 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why are those templates still there? Shouldn't they be deleted (or redirected) along with templates such as {{Not censored}} and {{Npa2}}? Squirepants101 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All in good time, let's not rush too quickly, see my response in the thread below. Cheers ^{Khukri -} 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Question...

What is going to happen to the old warning templates? We've already gotten one on MfD, and it would be nice to know what's intended before a flood come in. -Amark moo! 05:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the old warning templates better than these ones... Most of them, anyways. -- Ned Scott 08:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After having my brain installed I can see that the new ones are a bit better.. I'm still not fond of the little blue icon on every template.. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been a bit lax over the weekend and haven't done much on it, but I'm starting to list all of the warnings from the warnings category, here, and I'm putting what in my opinion should be redirected where, de-categorised or mfd'ed. Once it's finished I'll put it out to the universe where it can be torn to shreds as the project sees fit ;). Cheers ^{Khukri -} 08:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Defamation templates

Wouldn't it be best to remove the article parameter from the {{Uw-defamatory1}} series of template. I think it would be best to try and keep the actual article in which the edits occurred on the "down low" (so to speak). 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)John Reaves (talk)

I don't think so. If it's anything really bad, an admin can delete the info from the page history. Regardless, it's a good idea to let the user know what article they're being reprimanded for defaming in. Λυδαcιτγ 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was by User:John Reaves, by the way. Λυδαcιτγ 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a feature restricted to a small handful of admins, unless you're talking about deleting the whole article. See WP:OVERSIGHT. — Feezo (Talk) 02:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. John Reaves (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Which tense for level2

Gracenotes recently changed the tense in Vandalism2 to past tense. After I fiddled with it as well, the text now says that the person's recent edits "could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted." I was thinking I would change Delete2 and Error2 to be consistent. They both currently use the future tense version - i.e. if the person continues, it may be considered vandalism.

It's not a big thing, but I find myself going back and forth about whether I prefer the past tense or future tense version. Anyone else have a thought/preference? I would like to make all three templates consistent.--Kubigula (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It really depends upon what the objective is. The future tense discourages testers from being bold, but it also deters vandals (the distinction of faith is often a hard one to make). The past tense sort of has more of a sense of "that was a mistake, but (implied) please try again in good faith", although it does not get the (unnecessary?) future edits will be reverted to true bad faith vandals.

Of course, there is a reason why "uw-test" and "uw-vandalism" are different series, but this stage is a "no faith" assumption of sorts. In addition, I wanted establish it as an equivalent of {{vw}}, although this become a secondary concern. This is my rationale for changing it, about which even I feel qualms. I, like Kubigula, would appreciate input or fresh perspectives.

As a side note, it might be beneficial that some of these uw-vandalism or uw-test templates should include a link to WP:PG, or WP:5P. This was just a fleeting thought, but I thought I'd just mention it. Gracenotes^T § 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-own2}} and {{uw-own3}} ?

(Moved down from above where lost in past discussions WJBscribe 01:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
Despite the discussion above that Template:Uw-own1 should be a single level one, these further templates have been added to the series. Most troubling, in Template talk:Uw-own1 it is expressly suggested that uw-own2 or uw-own3 be used in the case of experienced users. This seems completely contrary to the widely held view that use of templates on established users is uncivil. Surely the WP:OWN template should be single level, as pointed out above. A polite note to established users suggesting that their attitude is a little controlling and that they should make way for the edits of others is surely more appropriate. Thoughts? WJBscribe 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In what may seem a strange reversal, these templates are particularly useful for less-experienced junior wikipedians who want to communicate with their over-bearing seniors, but have difficulty doing so in ways that seem civil. I applaud their use in that context, i.e. when the junior user might have difficulty being polite. Sdsds 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Username discussion templates

• {{UsernameConcern}} to begin discussing WP:U issues directly with a user.
• {{UsernameDiscussion}} to notify a user of a WP:RFC/NAME about him.
• {{UsernameAllowed}} to notify the user of an RFC result of "Allow".

The block and block notice already exist for the case of a "Disallow". Ben 01:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

test 2 heading does not represent test 2 content

In the heading it says "may be considered vandalism" and in the actual message it says "is vandalism." One or the other should be changed to avoid accidentally delivering too stiff a warning. P0M 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, can you give me some more information? I'm not sure which header you are referring to? Are you talking about {{uw-test2}} Regards ^{Khukri -} 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)