Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Spelling

Can we change the word "vandalize" in uw-vand3 and 4 to something which is used in both British and American English. How about "if you continue to make unconstructive edits such as vandalism" rather than "if you continue to vandalize" --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Webster lists both, but calls "vandalise" a "British variant"; Oxford lists both, but "vandalise" last. Looks to me like "vandalize" is the preferred form all over. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It is very rare here in the UK, and becoming even rarer all the time. Most British people consider "-ise" to be the only correct spelling. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly, my copy of Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary is growing old; if this is "becoming even rarer all the time", it won't automagically reflect that. Consider my objection withdrawn. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Any further issues? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to know why we always use the American spelling. I want to point out that the English speaking world (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, etc use the British spelling rules. That what we learn in school, until... we use a computer with a spelling checker!!! I think we need to have laws passed that when you get a new computer you MUST set the country, and stop using US as the default. Now, getting back to the topic. How do we insure the "favour", "vandalise" spelling is available to use?CubBC (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What if we changed {{uw-v3}} to, "If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." Perhaps {{uw-v4}} could be changed to, "This is the last warning you will receive for your vandalism. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing."--Kubigula (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever is decided upon make sure 1) It works well with the wording change in the thread below about lvl3 templates, 2) that any changes like this are across the board i.e. block, delete templates etc. Khukri 06:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it, Kubigula. One thing, I don't like the way they say "vandalize Wikipedia" or "Distrupt Wikipedia" Because the implication that the vandal is harming Wikipedia could encourage them. I suggest just leaving it at "the next time you edit disruptively" rather than "the next time you disrupt Wikipedia". The DominatorTalkEdits 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to level three and level four templates

Based on the concerns/issues above, I propose changing the text of {{uw-v3}} to:

  • Please stop editing disruptively. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing.

In addition, I propose changing the text of {{uw-v4}} to:

  • This is the last warning you will receive. Any further vandalism will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please raise any objections or issues. If there are none, I plan to make similar changes to the other level three and four warnings for consistency.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

v3 not sure I'm keen on the first sentence, v4 no probs. As I said above what we do on the V series has to be across the board. The wording is very similar if not identical to templates like the deletes {{uw-d3}} & {{uw-d4}}, OR {{uw-nor3}} & {{uw-nor4}} to mention a couple and I'm sure there's more. A couple of other examples;
  • Please stop your disruptive editing.
  • Please discontinue trying to disrupt Wikipedia.
  • Please do not continue trying to disrupt Wikipedia
  • Please stop or I'm going to find where you live and kick your door/teeth in.
Khukri 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion - "Please stop your disruptive editing" is better for V3, though your last one has a certain appeal too!--Kubigula (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody else feel uneasy about the use of "disrupt Wikipedia" or "vandalize Wikipedia", to me it just seems like we're making his edits out to be disturbing all of Wikipedia, and the word "trying" just seems strange in there, I suggest leaving the entire "Wikipedia" part out. Please tell me somebody else feels this. The DominatorTalkEdits 06:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, though I don't feel as strongly about it as you do. That's why I like the, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing." version.--Kubigula (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good one, also eliminates the ambiguity between American and British spellings. The DominatorTalkEdits 14:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I've made the changes to V3 and V4. I'll wait to see if there are any objections now that these changes are in the wild, before adjusting the other level threes and fours for consistency.--Kubigula (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but could we change the part that says "such as the edit you made to Example" to "Such as the one you made to Example" and "disruptive editing" to "disruptive edits", it just sounds a bit better to me, could be wrong though. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - overlooked your comment until now. I think "stop your disruptive editing" is more grammatically correct than "stop your disruptive edits". "Stop making disruptive edits" would work, though.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Any Warnings for "posting of copyrighted material (excluding pictures)"

I don't see them, and was wondering if I just overlooked them, or if they don't exist yet.

Spinach Dip 03:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I am refering specifically to this[1] edit, which posts a (large) excerpt from an upcoming book, even though there is already a warning one line above asking editors to not do this.
Just wondering.
Spinach Dip 03:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think {{uw-copyright}} should cover it, since it warns against both text and images. Nufy8 (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I just overlooked it! Thanks!
Spinach Dip 03:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of the subst parameter?

I notice that these templates take a "subst" parameter, and conditionally subst part of their output. For example, {{subst:uw-vandalism3|Page name}} produces output that includes {{#if:...}}. If you instead use {{subst:uw-vandalism3|Page name|subst=subst:}} then the output doesn't contain the ugly {{#if:...}} stuff.

Why do these templates need a parameter to switch between the two behaviours? I would have thought that it would make sense to unconditionally use the "subst"-style. If the problem is that the authors of these templates didn't know how to do so, then I believe that code like this will do the trick: {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if:...}}. The includeonly tags prevent the subst: from taking effect when you edit the template, but it takes effect when you use the template. —AlanBarrett 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Block standardization

A lot of the templates in Category:User block templates are non-standard. I've nommed those that aren't linked to an active project for deletion, but some look like their still in use and need to be standardized. I plead ignorance on how to code complex templates, so could someone help me go through them and standardize those that should be kept? Thanks. MBisanz talk 04:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A level 5 warning

I have designed a lvl 5 warning and I was going to discuss it on the talk page before including it here and in the warning series. As I'm not an administrator I find vandals who have already received their final warning and leaving a further "final" warning after that while waiting for administrative attention is always a bit frustrating. I took the Template:Uw-3rr4 idea and applied it to general vandalism, and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or objections on the matter.

Template can be found here. An example in use can be found here. I'm interested in all input, so fire away. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm a nub so if this needs to be deleted or something it won't hurt my feelings folks. Pip pip tally ho. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not too sure about it. It really does depend on the time since the last warning was issued. A 3 day old "final" warning to an anon, really shouldn't automatically be considered as the same person. Mind if I tweak it a bit though? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I welcome you to do whatever with it you feel is prudent. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had a look at it, I'm not too sure about it though. I feel it might be a step in the wrong direction, and could be misused. You see, it might become a commonly used template, and I feel it has the potential to be misused. It's also a bit bitey, even persistent vandals, we shouldn't be bitey towards. It's just my opinion, however, but I know I'm not alone in it. RC patrollers are becoming rather aggressive, and I just think this might egg them on more, so to speak. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There was one of these back in the day. Forget what it was called, but it fell outta disuse, since how many times can we say "OK, this time I MEAN IT!". Once the word "block" has been mentioned in a warning, the vandal should stop. If they don't, any admin can block away. Not sure droping a level 5 warning really adds that much to it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, terrible idea to have more warning levels. If anything I'd suport 3 levels before 5. Wizardman 06:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

After actually looking at the template, I see what the creator was going for, but since th time between the block and report is usually prett small, i dunno what it would accomplish. Wizardman 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Usually it is, yes. But in cases where someone is spamming excessively and quickly often times they will get in several such edits before administrative attention reaches it, and it's quite frustrating to have "this is your final warning" "er....this is another final warning" "we mean it this time. final warning." I thought it was better to have an "Alright, we warned you..." available.
I will say for my part that I agree about the warning levels, but usually I just go 2-3-4 and have that be my 3-level system. Usually when someone is deleting whole pages and replacing them with "this guy is gay" there's no need for a "your test edit worked!" warning. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates like this (you better watch out, you're at AIV now) have been deleted at TFD before as ineffectual, and not really having any point. I could pull up the discussions if you want. GracenotesT § 16:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, that would be helpful yes.
I'd like to also mention that the only reason I am even suggesting this template is out of personal frustration at it not being there in instances I have found it would have been appropriate. But I can accept that so far the idea doesn't seem very popular. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The template that got the most use prior to its deletion was Template:Non-admin fwarn; see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 23#Template:Non-admin fwarn. GracenotesT § 16:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
WjBscribe's argument for deletion was compelling. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Grouping by month

Although it is only implied in this page, it seems to be convention (including that of Cluebot) to place warnings under a month heading from the very first warning. This seems gratuitously bite-happy. It conveys the impression that a file has now been opened on the user, who is expected to be a repeat offender. I propose that the guideline is revised to require categorisation from the second warning onwards. Sound sensible? BigBlueFish (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's an impression one would get initially. I don't even think that most new editors think immediately about the fact that other editors can see messages left to them. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. They may even get the impression that grouping ALL messages by date is standard. Thats an equally reasonable conclusion to make. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not when the months are meant to be subheadings of a larger "Warnings" heading... BigBlueFish (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
So you'd prefer it didn't say they are warnings? May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about the context of a user who receives one warning. From what I've seen, this often constitutes people accidentally blanking a page or creating a non-notable article before they understand the rules. It is unnecessary to respond to this by opening an organised catalogue of their errors. The warnings themselves are purposefully designed to be polite and personal rather than boilerplate-ish, so that the first reads as kind advice to the user. The way they are currently headed (by convention; I myself do not) violates the spirit of this. It is important to note that the current wording concerns "grouping" of warnings. It presumes a first warning already and so is currently ambiguous whatever consensus we arrive at. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
So, to give a more pragmatic and direct answer to your question, no, I think the heading scheme should continue to be recommended, but that the first warning be unheaded or come under a descriptive heading, replaced by the header/month combination in the event of subsequent warnings. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly agree in that regard. I can see why the suggested route is the way it is, but of course I tend to view it on more of a case-by-case basis myself, so in a lot of instances I don't find it applicable. The month heading, however, I think is still appropriate. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A new template

Hey people, yesterday i brought up an issue at the LGBT wikiproject. Im not a member myself but i thought this was quite important. I noticed that wikipedia has a template aimed at fighting racist edits yet there is no such template for edits against sexual orientation. As both are just as bad as one another and since discrimination does (unfortunately) occure on wikipedia we need a template that is used in the same manner as the racism template. The consensus was that a template is needed and there seems to be an agreement that no harm can come of it. I would like you to read the following link and help impliment a new template that will hopefully be taken as seriously as the racism template. This is the link. Cheers. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I hadn't even noticed that the racism template had cropped up again. We used to have both racism and homophobia templates, but there was pretty clear consensus against having these kind of specialized warning templates. You can view the previous TfD discussions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_8#Template:uw-racism and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_8#Template:uw-homophobia. Consensus can change, but I personally still agree with the sentiments in those TfD discussion. Hate speech of any kind is vandalism and should be dealt with aggressively as such. I believe these kind of speciality templates can be counterproductive in that they suggest to the vandal that they are getting to us. IMO, it's better to deny any kind of recognition for this kind of garbage.--Kubigula (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)As discussed over at WT:LGBT, there is a fair amount of homophobic vandalism, and it would be nice to have a specific specific warning template to use on the pages of editors who perpetrate such. Aleta Sing 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, i believe admins take discrimination templates more seriously and therefore the editer gets fewer warnings. I would not be in favour of removing the racism template and would support a LGBT template. Maybe its time for a new consensus discussion. Either we have both or none. I would rather both though lol. Besides that was exactly a year ago right, maybe its time to see if views have changed. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we just create a general discrimination/hate speech template per the views of some of those editers in the links you provided. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer a general "disparagement" warning, since while admins may take racial/hate speech more seriously (at least I'm quicker to block), its not enshrined that way in policy, and would create too many extra warning templates. MBisanz talk 18:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Disparagement against hate speech, discrimination, vandalism, all of the above? Thats quite broad, could you clarify please? Cheers ;-) Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean the it should warn users to not make disparaging remarks about groups of individuals who share a common relating factor (ethinic, sexual, racial, etc). We have NPA for individuals on their own, so this would be an expansion of that. MBisanz talk 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes im in favour of a general template that includes all "minority groups". That way we only need one template. We also need to consider if it should be a levelled process of warnings or just 1 level template. Also should there be a difference between writting "Michael Jackson is a N..." and actually calling an editer a N...? One is a racist form of vandalism, the other is a racist person attack. ThoughtsRealist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the MJ one is a BLP-violation, clean and simple, the later is an NPA on an editor, clean and simple. I'm thinking more generally when say on an article about the cvil rights movement, someone starts off about "them Ns didn't stay in their place" etc. MBisanz talk 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK so it would be discriminatory edits on articles or persons?Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect articles (content) would be the best focus, since in theory we won't ever need to discuss an editor's group affiliation in such a manner and it owuld be covered by NPA. MBisanz talk 19:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, should it be levelled or 1 template? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say follow the "Defamation not specifically directed" template to make it "Group Disparagement". MBisanz talk 19:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i mean, how many warnings do they get before a block, with vandalism there are 5 chances. Do the warnings get more severe or is it a case of "you do it again and your out"? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd follow the 1-4+4im model, admin's have discretion to deal with these things in any event. MBisanz talk 19:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so at the minute we have decided to remove the racism template, have a general template for all minorities and for it to follow the 1-4+4im model. Does anyone oppose this? If not we should get down to figuring out the exact wordings for these 5 templates. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sold. When you're dealing with hateful vandalism, I think having a specific response template only serves to recognize and feed the vandalism. I don't see a compelling reason why we can't deal with it like regular vandalism, albeit more aggressively. Personally, if it's virulent and hateful vandalism, I skip right to a level 3 or 4im warning. I also don't think admins pay more attention to the type of template - the key is whether the vandal has been warned appropriately (i.e. reached a level 3 or 4) and is continuing to vandalize. Finally, I suggest waiting a bit to see if there are other thoughts or ideas before you start working on the wording.--Kubigula (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, let others join in, theres no rush. If there was a policy that said "if its discriminatory vandalism jump to warning 3" i would agree with you. However different people react differently and might follow the 1-5 levels exactly, i used to. However if there is a warning and an admin can see that someone has been warned not only for vandalism but discrimination, almost all admins will react more aggressively towards it. Its not to give the vandal/bigot notoriety, its for others to take note that this is a little more serious than adding dick randomly in an article. Thats my view anyways. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I disagree with these templates. From the encyclopedia point of view, vandalism is vandalism no matter if the content matter is derogatory about a certain section of the public or not. For me if it's serious enough it comes under WP:RBI, they know they've transgressed, waving a rainbow flag at them whilst shout homophobia just encourages it in my opinion. Their edits are vandalism and we should just treat it as thus. Khukri 22:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What if someone does attack an editer in a homophobic manner? Leaving a warning saying "oh do be civil dear" is hardly going to be taken as serious by an admin. I was always more in support of using it in the case of person attacks anyway. Calling someone a N*gger to their face is a little more than incivil. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing else to add anyone? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah if it's a personal attack then it's not vandalism, you'd use the NPA series. There are many groups of people that are targetted by bigots or have hate attacks against them, but this still doesn't mean one attack is more more serious than another and there is no need to identify one with it's own templating system over any other. It's simple, revert, warning and block if necessary, it does not need undue attention brought to it by it's own template. Khukri 14:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
ECAlso commenting on above as an admin, I tend to block on sight these forms of attacks as do many admins. Also we take any template issued seriously, so to assume that just because someone was issued with {{uw-npa1}} means wouldn't be taken seriously is not correct. Also there is nothing stopping anyone going straight to {{uw-npa4im}} if they thought the personal attack warranted it.

You realise this would mean removing the racism template? We cant has a double standard? Its the last thing i want to see. ;-(Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also added above during edit conflict. I would have no problems with that at all. If you look through the history you'll see that's always been my position. Put it up for WP:TFD if you wish. Khukri 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually the uw-racism template was deleted a year ago here Khukri 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, racially motivated edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others.

Or not lol. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted {{uw-ra}} as a re-creation of {{uw-racism}} and there was no discussion about it's recreation. Khukri 21:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but if i see that racism template pop back up im starting this dscussion again lol. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP and delete templates

I see some discussion above about better handling the case of a new editor removing BLP violations, but it doesn't seem to have led to significant change. As I discuss here, maybe we should use the "delete" templates to push people with BLP concerns at either WP:BLPN or WP:OTRS, so that someone else can assist them. Bovlb (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a concrete proposal. To each of {{uw-delete1}}, {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}}, {{uw-delete4}}, and {{uw-delete4im}} add the sentence:
If you are attempting to correct a problem with the article, go here for advice and assistance.
Bovlb (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This note would be best added to all templates that are likely to be used on such an editor, so I'm going to include {{uw-3rr}}. Bovlb (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be better to indicate on the warnings that removing (and therefore challenging) "sourced" info is a problem, so the warnings won't apply to the blanking of unsourced or poorly sourced info - even if the newbies didn't include edit summaries in cleaning up the libel on articles about themselves. -- Jeandré, 2008-05-19t00:43z

uw-username

At the moment, when used with a parameter, the template looks as follows:

...it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: {{{1}}}.

Would it not look far cleaner if the reason text were added without breaking the sentence, similar to when other user warning templates are used with parameters? Something like the following might look better:

...it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy because {{{1}}}.

I didn't want to make the modification without discussion first, but it does make the template look less mechanical. haz (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Anomie⚔ 16:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

uw-template series

I notice {{uw-template1}} was TFDed almost a year ago. {{uw-template2/3/4/4im}} were included in the same TFD, but were never taken care of. Would an admin here care to do so? Anomie⚔ 13:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, and thanks for bring it up. Khukri 14:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB request

If anyone has access to AWB or some similar permission to make automated edits, we have 234 talk pages on uw-* templates that previous discussion determined should be redirected here. I've made a list in my sandbox (plain text or wikilinked), all someone needs to do is run through and create the redirect for each page. I'd throw together a script to do it myself, but I gather that's not recommended. If no one here wants to do it, let me know and I'll take it to WP:BOTREQ. Anomie⚔ 03:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just plow through it by hand. Anomie⚔ 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Level 4 warnings: An idea

(Forgive me if this has already been discussed.)

The Problem: Often, when a user vandalizes after a final, level 4 warning, they are simply given another warning, rather than reported to WP:AIV for blocking. While sometimes this might be appropriate (for example if there is a long period of constructive, vandalism-free editing between the last level 4 warning and their new vandalism), too often the better thing to do would have been to go to WP:AIV. See User_talk:125.236.44.53 for a recent example.

Proposed Solution: Amend {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} such that it also adds some invisible text at the end of the template message that suggests to the next person coming along to warn the user that going to WP:AIV might be a better course of action. It could look something maybe like this:

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits{{#if:|, such as 
 the one you made to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. <br/> Any further [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] '''will''' result in your being 
 [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> 
 <!-- 
 
 NOTE: This user has already received a  FINAL WARNING for final vandalism. If you are about to leave another vandalism warning,
 
 PLEASE CONSIDER REPORTING THIS USER TO ADMINISTRATION INTERVENTION AGAINST VANDALISM INSTEAD. To do this, go to: 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AIV
 
 and follow the instructions there.
  -->
 (((Signature and time stamp))

The above needs work to look prettier, but hopefully you-all see what I'm getting at. Thoughts? Yilloslime (t) 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a nice idea, but I think the consensus in the past has been to avoid gratuitously letting vandals know about WP:AIV. They may not see the comment in the rendered page, but if they hit the "last change" link in the message waiting announcement, they'll see it. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a bad idea for 2 reasons:
  1. As mentioned above its a bad idea to let the vandals know about WP:AIV. In general, if they've been told to stop, they should. If they don't, then they should not be upset for being blocked.
  2. As a bigger issue, there are already too many reports at WP:AIV that administrators have to decline for being inappropriate, for example where a user's last level 4 warning is a month old, and they have not edited in between. This would only increase the number of inappropriate AIV reports without substantially decreasing the amount of vandalism done to the encyclopedia.
Just my $0.02... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

New (and not-so-new) uw templates

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, but before I took my break I had been running an API query looking for new uw-* templates, and posting any interesting results. Should I continue, and if so should I post here or at WT:UW?

Anyway, new templates this time around are:

I would like to TFD {{Uw-9/11}} and {{uw-balkans}} per previous discussion, TFD {{Uw-confuser}} as a special-case dup of {{Uw-username}}, TFD {{Uw-ifu3im}} for not making sense, TFD {{Uw-remove1}} for being a dup of {{Uw-delete1}}, CSD G4 {{Uw-vand5}} as a recreation of {{fwarn}}, RFD {{Uw-blp0}} as being a generally useless redirect, and move {{Uw-welcometest}} to a non-uw name. Also, I don't know whether we should redirect {{uw-drmmt}} to {{uw-tdel1}} or get rid of the uw-tdel series. But I would like consensus here before taking any of these actions, so please reply to let me know what you think. Anomie⚔ 02:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Great to have you back here Anomie! I've boldly redirected remove1 for the time being. Most of your other suggestions look good to me. I'm on the fence about the uw-tdel series, but my inclination is that it's not a bad idea to have such a series.--Kubigula (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back, I appreciate it! Maybe I'll follow your lead and create {{uw-remove2/3/4/4im}} as similar redirects. Anomie⚔ 03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done many of these. Do we support the rest? Specifically:

Anomie⚔ 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-sanctions}}

I've attempted to revise {{uw-sanctions}}, both to add the 9/11 sanctions and to make it a better fit with the UW style. Ideally, this will serve as a meta-template (if not a replacement) for {{uw-balkans2}} and {{uw-9/112}}; {{uw-balkans}} and {{uw-9/11}}, IMO, should be deleted as mentioned above. Thoughts? Anomie⚔ 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)