![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but when I use the "#" symbol to create a numbered list in warning sections on user pages as per the standard layout at WP:UW, the numbers aren't showing up anymore with the templates. The count still continues (a non uw template will show the correct number) but the numbers seem to be obscured by the uw templates somehow. For some examples see User talk:167.206.156.241 or User talk:64.68.241.78. Hoping someone more experienced at template coding than myself can fix this. Thanks! — Elipongo ( Talk| contribs) 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>It's still a recommended guideline on the layout, all we decided was that it wasn't to be automaticaly included. The layout is an anathema, but there are some long established editors out there that do adhere to the layout guidelines, and I have to admit pages do look a damn sight smarter when done properly, instead of a blur of warnings. Khu kri 16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems there are two problems going on here, right? In Internet Explorer, the numbers do not appear when using "left" in the image markup (anyone know why this happens?). In most other browsers, using "left" in the image markup causes line break problems. However, we need the floatleft div there because some people might not put two line breaks after the previous warning, thus causing multiple warnings on a single line. Reducing the image size will work, but it's not a guaranteed solution. Tables are not a clean solution. I personally don't see any reason to make changes if hardly anybody is using ordered lists for warnings. Vandals don't care about how their talk page looks. Warn them and just get on with it. --- RockMFR 02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. It is far easier to review the warning history of a user if they are neatly ordered and sorted by month. Users should not be forced to use numbered lists, but templates do have to be compatible with them (see documentation). The only solutions I can think of are to either remove the pointless fluffy icons, or use a table format. I'll restore the latter soon if nobody has any other solution. —{ admin} Pathoschild 19:47:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The one-line templates (e.g. {{ uw-v3}} {{ uw-v4}} are shorter than the image, and so subsequent list items are getting starting at the right of the image becauase technically that is where the next line is. Adding <br clear="all" /> to the end of each template seems to solve it. However, this means people will have to type
or the signature has to become part of the template. I'm trying to think of better solutions. – Pomte 10:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
|left
on the image. See
here. However you will see spacing discrepancies especially when you make your window smaller. –
Pomte
11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)<unindent>Then we have the gap between the first and second lines. Unless anyone comes up with another way, I think I'll run AWB through them all in a couple of days and remove the left. It's only a minor aesthetic issue anyway and I think it'll be far less drastic than adding tables to all the warnings than having the signature problem all over again. Khu kri 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Pathoschild has changed the icons sizes from 30px (lv 4) & 25px (lvls 1-3) to 20 px. I have reverted these changes because a consensus to change the icons has not been reached. Plus only the icons in the {{uw-vand}} series have been changed so the other series {{uw-test}}, {{uw-blank}}, etc. still have their original sizes which breaks the original standardization of the icons. Please leave comments or suggestions and disscuss below before changing again as I do not want to be in an edit war. -- Hdt83 Chat 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could I suggest everyone hang off changing reverting templates at will, as there's a risk we're going to start looking bloody stupid to the outside world, and I also had a gut full of reverting changes last night to {{ uw-block3}}. This includes leaving the table changes that Pathos has done as it demonstrates one option open to us but is fairly innocuous to the issuing editor. Over today I will try and find the relevant diff's if I get a change that shows why things have been done, as I said above we are going round in circles here. Open up a discussion and see what everyone, including the regulars at WT:UTM, think about this whole thing. Cheers Khu kri 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Numbered lists are far more useful for quickly viewing warning history than fluffy icons. Although users don't have to use lists, warnings do have to be compatible with such usage.
To avoid all these problems, I suggest we remove the 'info' icons altogether. They break numbered lists, bulleted lists, and indentation, which essentially makes it impossible to organize them neatly. They give Wikipedia a fluffy, amateurish Geocities look (one vandal retorted, "Watch out! He's got rich text editing!"). Combined with a monthly header system and the fact that template warnings should never be used with users that have a lot of non-warning discussion, there is no need to distinguish them from other discussion.
If they don't read their talk messages, a cute little
won't make them do it, but it will make editing harder for some users and reading harder for administrators. —{
admin}
Pathoschild 19:20:11, 03 May 2007 (UTC)
|left
thingie is nice, but to be honest if removing it fixes the lists on short warnings (seems so), better get rid of it. But I think we should either keep it everywhere or remove it from all templates. Don't make assumptions on the length of the warnings. Users can add text at the end, and not everyone has the same screen size. I'm pretty sure the v3 might look big on my old 14'' monitor ;) --
lucasbfr
talk
08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)OK AWB is set up to rock n roll but I'm going to wait until tomorrow morning.
This is only being done to the UW templates listed at WP:UTM. If anyone wants any more mass changes done or doesn't want me to go ahead please leave a message here or on my talk. Khu kri 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Have added no3 above Khu kri 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OK I've spent most of the morning going through all 139 templates. Things I've done are
All the templates even the newer additions are now in my watchlist, even since we created them I've started to see divergence in the system in this short time. I've had to leave personal messages with a number of editors recently who have come by and changed one or two warnings as it suits them (one was blocked ended up permanently), without any forethought for the entire system. If anyof you see this sort of thing please direct them to discuss their changes here or preferably at WP:UTM first. Now for an afternoon of beer n rugby! Khu kri 11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmm... I was wondering on the opportunity to bring the speedy deletion notices (such as {{ nn-warn}}) in the scope of the project, with a shiny (i) icon. I am tagging a lot of articles for speedy deletion these days, and the {{ uw-creation}} series is not clear enough (especially for A7). Do we do a one shoe fits all speedies (the problem being that we will explain the {{ hangon}} part, but not the rationale behind the deletion)? Or we could do a single issue template especially for A7, errrr... {{ uw-a7notice}}? (Or we can leave it as it is, of course, I am merely suggesting ;) -- lucasbfr talk 08:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>I've thought many times about exactly the same thing, and was one of the reasons I asked Ben to sort out his RFC warnings into rfc-. I'd like to see eventually something like;
to name a few. Khu kri 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As it's been talked about on various occasions, just to get the ball rolling I've started listing some of the warnings for speedy deletion and image warnings to get the uw- treatment. Even though these come under talk/user page warnings I still think they shouldn't come under the uw- prefix so I've added as a starter im- & sd- but it's all open to discussion. Again there will be editors who do not want to change the existing systems, so please do not touch any live warnings.
Just add to the list or change them as you see fit, this is by no means a complete list just the first I came up with off the top of my head in a couple of mins. Cheers Khu kri 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The codes listed are the speedy deletion criteria
Speedy code | template |
---|---|
G1 nonsense | {{ sd-nonsense}} |
G2 test | {{ sd-test}} |
G3 vandalism | {{ sd-vandalism}} |
G4 recreation | |
G5 banned, G6 housekeeping G7 author, G8 talk, G9 office | |
G10 | {{ sd-attack}} |
G11 | {{ sd-spam}} |
G12 | {{
sd-copyvio}}
{{ im-copyvio}} |
A1 context | {{ sd-context}} |
A2 | {{ sd-foreign}} |
A3 content | {{ sd-blank}} |
A5 transwikied | |
A7 notable | {{ sd-notable}} |
I1 redundant | |
I2 corrupt/empty | |
I3 bad license | {{ im-badlicense}} |
I4 no license | {{ im-nolicense}} |
I5 unused fair use | |
I6 no fair use rationale | |
I7 bad fair use | {{ im-badfairuse}} |
I8 copy | same as I1? |
User:Sigma 7 is proposing to put the above warning up for TfD, see it's talk page. I've responded with my thoughts there, but it could do with someone elses opinion as I may be too close to the uw- system. Cheers Khu kri 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
<unident> What do you lot reckon I should do to talk pages such as v1 that has comments copy it here? Khu kri 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I started to work a bit on that one. It's a first draft, feel free to comment/rewrite everything ;). The idea is to be able to use the template with or without a header (header=1), with or without an icon (icon=n), and before or after deletion (delete=1). You can see some sample outputs on my sandbox. I am not sure about the wording of the deleted version. -- lucasbfr talk 08:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There is often vandalism being contributed to the WikiCalendar pages. Please create a warning template to warn those who add their own names or names of friends to the births in the year's birthdays, etc. The message that is typically used is "Please do not add yourself or anyone else without a Wikipedia article to the Wikicalendar pages. To have an article, a person must meet the criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Thank you". I am assuming that this message is typed manually. It would be great if there was a template such as uw-wikicalendar, etc. - Gilliam 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added a line to {{ s/wnote}} stating that deleted warnings are viewable in the page's history. I've run across a few people who seem concerned about this and who have been manually adding such a note. — Elipongo ( Talk| contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed plenty of warnings based on non-fair uploading and use... but I can't seem to find one based on unfair use of an already uploaded image. For example, let's say there is a logo for a TV show on Wikipedia, being used (fairly) in that show's article, and a user uses it on their userpage, or another page unfairly. There really isn't much of a notification/warning system for that. I'm just curious as to what you guys think about that. I'd be interested in making one, so I just want to get some feedback about it here first. Thanks! -- HAL2008 03:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There are frequent clearly non notable autobios of junior high school students where, although they totally misunderstand WP, a formal warning such as we have been giving is simply inappropriate--I am thinking particularly of those where they are clearly making a personal statement and while it is embarrassing to us and will be to them, we should not come on the same way we do to corporate spammers. I often improvise something, and many of us also do,, but I think we need a simpler way of doing it with an alternate template for at least "inappropriate article" and I suggest the wording: "I'm sorry, but articles about your accomplishments and biography will have to wait until you become famous, as demonstrated by magazine articles or other reliable sources referring to you and your work. That's the way things work here, so it's been necessary to delete the page {{{}}} But we'd be glad for you to contribute on things that are already notable:" followed by a brief welcome message. DGG 09:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I had concerns regarding this warning given by User:TomTheHand to User:Husond for this good faith edit. The warning given called his actions vandalism which I feel is ALWAYS innapropriate to consider good faith actions vandalism. I confronted User:TomTheHand on his talk page here to which he replied "This template, which was developed by Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings, is the generally accepted response to removal or editing of talk page comments inappropriately." If this is a common practice, it needs to stop. There is no point when a good faith editor should be called a vandal and accused of vandalism. If an edit is ill advised, ask them to stop. Is this truly a common practice? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need separate warnings for userpage vandalism? Why don't we just redirect to the vand series? --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the UPV warnings should stay. It may not be clear to a new user that any edit to a user page could be considered vandalism. A user might add a comment to a user page thinking that they are contributing. Giving the user a uw-v1 isn't really appropriate. The UPV warning is also a good message to give to someone who might have forgotten to login before editing their user page. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Unindent For me, if you would all be happy with it, would just move the old {{ uw-upv1}} --> {{ uw-upv}} with redirect, then redirect everything else over to equivalent vandalism warning for a month or so, then sweep it under the carpet and TfD it. Khu kri 09:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this has been brought up before, but has this project been working with user script projects? I use Twinkle for my vandal-fighting and recently when I mentioned WP:UW over on their talk it seemed they were not aware of the warning layout being used.
AzaToth says he will try and implement UW into Twinkle script, but I was just wondering if other script projects were in a similar situation? Would be good for them to get on board with a standard approach to user warnings. -- Bren talk 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
How come when we removed all the auto signing things from the warnings, we didn't remove them from the block templates? --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
A user created uw-aiv2. Since uw-aiv is a single use warning, and we don't want it to seem like a multi-level one, I renamed it to uw-notaiv, since they have different purposes. I choose it to mean "not [for] aiv." Anyone have a better name? --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone think we should make a uw- template for some re-creating a page after it's been deleted by AFD or something else (see {{ repost}}, the old template). --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
"you may be blocked for repeatedly recreating deleted pages." Also, I still think sp- is better than sd- :) --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I posted about a fair use image warning a while ago, but I think it was buried in other talk comments. Either way, I decided that after a while, it was a good idea to post again. Either way, I'm just wondering if anyone thinks they could be useful, they are located as follows: im-fuir1, imfuir2, im-fuir3, im-fuir4, im-fuir4im The point of these is for them to be used when a user adds an image to a page that is under fair use in certain circumstances, but not in the place that they used it. For example, a user placing a copyrighted image (like a logo for an organization, television show, movie, etc.) on a page where it isn't supposed to be (like their userpage). These templates would be nice notices about that, but also allow to give higher warnings if a user is doing it repeatedly. If a user was placing the images for vandalism, the "uw-image" series would be used instead. I would like to submit these to the User warnings project, and possibly the user warnings system, but I'm pretty sure that the community has to approve these first, so I just would like some thoughts on them, and whether they are allowed to be added to the project. Also, I also would like to know if I should submit these for semi-protection. Thanks! -- HAL2008 talk 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I feel the header assumes that warnings will accumulate; for a first, WP:AGF warning I don't feel the header is really warranted (it looks sort of hungry and might confuse the user herself). Might it be an idea to only add the header after the second or third warning? Phaunt 16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ Talk-vandal1}}
{{ Talk-vandal2}}
{{ Talk-vandal3}}
{{ Talk-vandal4}}
I noticed that a lot of people mess with their talk page and the warnings so I made these. if anyone would like to help out (like add those hand pictures) you can do that if you want. Cheers, JetLover ( Talk) ( Sandbox) 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest the creation of {{ uw-probation}} for warning against vandalism or controversial edits to articles under probation.
Please stop. One or more of your recent edits was to a page which is placed under
article probation. All edits to this page must strictly follow
Wikipedia's rules, especially keeping to a
neutral point of view and not
edit warring. Potentially controversial edits must first be proposed and debated on the talk page. If you continue you will be
blocked from editing. Any editors making disruptive edits to pages on probation may be
banned from those pages on sight.
Is this a good idea? --
h2g2bob (
talk)
22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose a inappropriate edit Summary warning, because some users put inappropriate remarks on edit summaries(even though there contribution was usefull) I have noticed this before and think there should be a warning for this. Oyster guitarst 01:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
<---- I think the template should start with this image, at least for higher level warning templates.
Hydrogen Iodide
02:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we appriciate your recent
useful contributions, the edit summary that you provided, such as the one you made to [[:{{{ARTICLE NAME}}}]],}} was misleading or confusing to other editors. Please enter an
appropriate edit summary for any future edits you make, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Test template. Modified version of {{ uw-vandalism1}}. Hydrogen Iodide 03:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Level l:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we appreciate your recent
useful contributions, the edit summary that you provided, such as the one you made to [[:{{{ARTICLE NAME}}}]],}} was misleading or confusing to other editors. Please enter an
appropriate edit summary for any future edits you make, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Level 2:
Please refrain from making
improper edit summaries to Wikipedia, as you did to [[:{{{ARTICLE NAME}}}]]}}. If you need help with making proper edit summaries, please see
Edit summary. Thank you.
Questions? Comments? Hydrogen Iodide 03:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, I disagree with the 4 levels of warnings. For just about any purpose, 3 levels should be sufficient to get the point across. This applies not only to the discussion above, but to all other user talk page warnings. - Amatulic 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
(I wouldn't include the part about welcome & thanks in this group of templates-- offenders are often just experienced people who forget.) DGG ( talk) 05:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a template that lets the vandal know that he/she has been reported to AIV. Here is what I think it should look like:
You have been reported to
Administrator's intervention against vandalism for your
disruptive edits. The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, you will be
blocked from editing.
I modified the {{ uw-vandalism4}} template a little to get this. I would like some feedback on this proposal from the community. Hydrogen Iodide 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. You know what I just noticed, we don't have a uw-username block template, which is a pretty common reason for blocking. This one wouldn't need the time parameter though, since it's always indefinite. I'll start creating one based on {{ UsernameBlocked}}, and another one based on {{ UsernameHardBlocked}}. The parserfunctions and prettiness wizards will need to do the rest. :) --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed we don't have a notice for not starting new topics on a talk page at the bottom of the talk page, or not starting them with a heading. I've created the proposed notice here. Feel free to improve. Cheers, Mystytopia 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a warning for users with mildly inappropriate usernames or names that are neither appropriate nor blatantly offensive. Pretty obvious that this template is derived from {{ unencyclopedic}}. Hydrogen Iodide 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Err... Personally I think it is extremely biting to newcomers. At the moment, I am using {{ UsernameConcern}} which is not covered by WP:UW yet (but probably should, you are right). When a username is clearly inappropriate, there is no need for a warning (since there is not much the user can do to change this), these get blocked on sight at WP:UAA. When it is not clearly inappropriate, then I think a template more in the {{ UsernameConcern}} would be better, because the user might not know he did something wrong. -- lucasbfr talk 08:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I've finished making a one-time notice/warning for fair use polcies on images. You can see the current one at: Uw-fuir. And the multiple level ones I made first (which if they are not used might as well be CSDed to save serverspace) A small sample follows: NOTE: Please note that this is the base version, the specific image name as well as a custom message may be added, just like all other warning templates.
An image or media file has been removed from your userpage, user talk page, or other page because it was licensed as
fair use. Wikipedia's
fair use policy states that Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image, and only if no free equivalent is available. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people.. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see
Wikipedia's fair use policy and an
accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Further use of thiese images will be considered
vandalism, and shall be treated as such.Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
-- HAL2008 talk Contributions 06:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
See here: User:Hdt83/Sandbox. Basically you add a <br><br> at the end of each template and the left float for icons works beautifully. What do you think? -- Hdt83 Chat 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What about something like this? Instead of a <br><br> at the end, add a single </br>. The icon floats to the left correctly. -- Hdt83 Chat 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hdt83 - You missed a few templates when undoing your change. Please double-check. Anomie 13:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ Uw-ublock}} has been created, but we still need to uw-ify {{ UsernameHardBlocked}}. We could either use the current one, or the shorter one that I've made here, and rename it to something like {{ uw-uhblock}}. R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a new proposal for template layout that fixes the left float problem. The original layout is used by some users mainly because it helps organize templates neatly. The problem with it is that the left float doesn't work as seen in the previous sections and archives of this talk page. The new layout I propose helps correct the left float issue that affects the current layout due to MediaWiki restrictions. It basically adds a <br> at te end of each warning/comment. Example here. Any comments? -- Hdt83 Chat 08:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Current Layout
== Warnings == {{subst:s/wnote}} ===July 2007=== Warning <br> Warning <br> Warning <br> Warning <br> Block ===August 2007=== warning <br> :Comments about warning <br> ::comment <br> warning <br> Block
I noticed some vandals like to blank their usertalk page after they've been blocked or replace the page with attacks directed at Wikipedia. I think the {{ blocked}} template and any other similar templates should have a notice or a line that says: Note that if you blank your usertalk page and/or issue attacks directed Wikipedia, you will not be able to edit the talkpage and thus lose your ability to request unblock. So, how about it? Hydrogen Iodide 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there wasn't a uw template for users who are using Wikipedia as a social network (ex. only making userpage edits, etc) so I created one. User:Hdt83/socialnetwork. Feel free to improve on it and discuss. -- Hdt83 Chat 07:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, Having done warnings for nigh on 10 months I've removed myself from active in this project, to start working elsewhere. I won't be keeping an eye on the pages as I'll want to dabble, but any questions don't hesitate to ask. Traa fer now. Khu kri 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the stop hand icon is the biggest (30px) and used for the last warning. I have a new proposal that would remove that extra whitespace that occurs when the sentence gets too long and it also looks better and emphasizes the "last warning" part. -- Hdt83 Chat 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Without the <br>:
This is your last warning. The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
test, you will be
blocked from editing. --
Hdt83
Chat
21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
With <br>:
This is your last warning.
The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
test, you will be
blocked from editing. --
Hdt83
Chat
21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Heres how they look with the other warnings together:
For the other warnings using the stop hand we just put the left back in. Without <br>
With <br>
New proposed layout
The numbered list is there and is a lot neater courtesy of the added space between each warning. The left float works correctly for all of the icons and everything is neat. This may be a good solution. Any comments? -- Hdt83 Chat 05:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone actually using the recommended layout? Is there a consensus that it is the preferred layout? -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should change the {{ uw-afd}} templates so they can be used for warning users for removing deletion notices from any page. I mean, deletion notices could be removed from any page, not just articles. If changed, the templates could look like the following below. Feel free to improve:
Level 1:
Welcome to Wikipedia. It would be appreciated if you would not remove deletion notices from pages, or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create
consensus. If you oppose the deletion of a page, please
comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.
Level 2:
Please do not remove deletion notices from pages or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.
Level 3:
Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Level 4:
This is your last warning.
The next time you remove deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Cheers, Lig hts 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The warning levels say that you will be blocked if you vandalize again but I think that should be changed to may because sometimes you will not always be blocked like if you gave a bad AIV report. Oyster guitarist 20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
it should be changed to this:
Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
It sounds like a good idea for lv3 warnings. For lv4, it should still be "will" since it already says "last warning". -- Hdt83 Chat 08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This all comes down to editors issing lvl 4 templates, wrongly I might add, as the first template. If someone receives the full monty of warnings, there is no ambiguity about them being blocked and very little chance of false AIV reports being issued. Editors who have been issued with warnings through misunderstanding or a content dispute, usually try and enter into dialogue with their warner prior to it getting to lvl4. Now if someone is given a lvl 4 which says they will be blocked and then for one reason or other a block isn't ensuing, this I would suggest is the fault of the issuer and not the system. This is why lvl 3 is you maybe blocked and lvl 4 is you will be blocked. For the amount of times this would be erroneous, I would suggest leaving it as 'will be' blocked, as this is applicable to way more vandals than problems that might arise. Cheers
Khu
kri
11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I just created the single issue notice Template:Uw-3o, for editors who list a dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion in a wrong way. This happens to about three editors a day. I would be glad if an experienced user warning editor could look over and see if I've done this right. Thanks, User:Krator ( t c) 18:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have created Template:Uw-recentblockwarn because often I see users who are blocked for vandalism of Wikipedia come back almost immediately after being blocked. Often, they vandalize the same article in a similar fashion before the block which indicates a persistent vandal. This template was designed for IP addresses where vandalism often comes back after a block and AGF is out of the question as it is obviously the same user (most IPs cant be indef blocked). What do you think of it? -- Hdt83 Chat 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As I've worked with most of you for a while and respect your opinions (even though I've made myself absent from here) I thought I get some input from you lot. I came across this whilst blocking someone today, and I know we've refused all templates of this sort in the past. Is this an MfD case or the fact it's in so call user space give it any protection User:Ratiocinate/admin-report. Thoughts please? Cheers as ever Khu kri 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I proposed the addition of two templates to UTM on the UTM talk page. I'm not certain which of these talk pages is more appropriate for the proposal, which follows up on various conversations here and there, so I am cross posting here. Feel free to comment.-- Kubigula ( talk) 19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've found myself having to explain quite a bit lately why FU images are not acceptable on BLPs, I just made a template for it at {{ User:Lucid/blpi}}. {{ uw-blpi}} would be a more convineant link, as well as having the link available through TW, but mainly I think the project might benefit from it. -- lucid 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I get sick of anonymous vandalizers that continuously blank out their talk page of multiple warnings (about 3 or more). Although this isn't against policy, it is very inconvenient for users warning people since we have to look at the history of the talk page, or we sometimes think that this is a first offense while they actually should get a level 4 warning. Why not try something like this?
Welcome to Wikipedia. It appears that you have had multiple warnings in the past that you now deleted. This change has been
reverted so that users will not incorrectly warn you in the future. Although deleting your warnings isn't against
Wikipedia policy, try to
archive your talk page instead to make it easier to see your warning history. Thank you.
This would only be a notice, and would not get any higher than this level, and a user couldn't get blocked for this offense, it would just be a reminder to archive rather than blank the page. Leave your comments please! —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have recently noticed vandals, especially sockpuppets, like to place {{ block}} on unblocked users, including users that don't have a single warning and do RC patrol. It seems like the vandal wants to scare users by putting that template on the user or user talk page. I think there should be a warning or at least a notice to users who intentionally misuse the template in such a manner. Hydrogen Iodide 04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Should it be a single template or a series? Oyster guitarist 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I made a bold revision of the template - feel free to revert if you don't like it. I think it should be flexible enough to be a first or subsequent warning, so I removed the "welcome" and tried to strike a balance between a level one and a level two. The prior version was more of a mix between a level one and a level three. As I said, feel free to revert or edit mercilessly.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the template so far (no change):
A recent edit that you made has been
reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a
warning template. Please note that inappropriate use of warning templates may appear to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Hydrogen Iodide 02:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK - you guys have made your point. I think several of the above could have been handled with the regular vandalism templates, but there does seem to be some demand for a template misuse template. Unless there are additional insights, I will modify it to a true level one template. Template misuse beyond that should, IMO, be dealt with as regular vandalism or with a personal message.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hrm. I see no reason why the {{ uw-v}} series won't cover this. If it's vandalism, it's vandalism. Simple as that. Gracenotes T § 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The template so far (about 2/3 month later):
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been
reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a
blocking or warning template. Please use
the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our
introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hydrogen Iodide 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
See here Khu kri 06:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
After seeing many blocked vandals playing and fooling around with {{ unblock}}, I think there should be a sentence added to the block templates. It should read something like: "Please note misuse of {{ unblock}} will result in talk page protection and therefore you will lose the ability to request an unblock" or something like that. I think this will let the person who is requesting an unblock know that abusing the template will result in loss of unblock requesting. Comments? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been modifying IP talk pages per the warning format in this article. However, I have noticed the pound sign is not always creating a numbered list. Here is an example. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindEagle ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages was in the scope of this project. If so, your input would be appreciated here. Thank you. - Rocket000 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If a user is being generally uncivil, but not at users, which warning would i use? I think AGF is only if they are uncilvil towards users. Or should a uw template be created on civility in comments? Simply south 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. However, please remain
civil when commenting on an article's talk page. Thank you. Thank you..
Some minor fixes, how does it look. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The {{ uw-test1}} thanks the user for experimenting with Wikipedia, and gently points them towards the sandbox. This is as it should be: we do want users to experiment with editing, and hope that their experiments will encourage them to become productive editors.
However, when an article name is provided as an optional parameter, the template, as it is currently written, thanks the user for experimenting with that article. In particular, the current text of {{subst:uw-test1|Example}}
reads:
“ | Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Example on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. | ” |
This seems a bit silly. On one hand we seemingly thank the user for choosing Example as the page to experiment on; on the other, we later say they should use the sandbox instead. I recently modified the template so that, given the same parameter, it instead read:
“ | Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Example worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. | ” |
However, Khukri reverted the edit, suggesting that I discuss it here first. I'm therefore doing that now. So, does anyone see anything wrong with the change? — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the responses. I've (re)made the change. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Messages should be removed without archival after three months or less, depending on the number of warnings. In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed."
Anyone know which vandal tool keeps adding the If this a shared IP... comment to the bottom of every template. I'm now deleting them when I see them, as it messes up warning layouts, and if the statement is on the page once and it has been ignored there is no need to add it to every bloody template. That is what anonymous IP headers are all for. Khu kri 12:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This comment was originally a reply in the thread above. It's enough different from the other questions that it seems better as a separate thread.
I remain unconvinced about the numbering. I've now seen it on some pages and not on others. I've not yet seen a page where the numbering made the warnings easier to scan. I don't think that it is just the technical layout problem that was addressed before - it's a more fundamental question of whether it helps future readers or not. So far, even where implemented perfectly, it's making the pages harder for me to read, not easier.
Rossami
(talk)
15:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone recently pointed me to this page. I've been patrolling for vandalism for a long time and appreciate the need for standardization, especially on anon user talk pages. But I strongly dislike some of the advice given in the Layout section. Specifically:
Thanks for your attention. Rossami (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Current wording |
Proposed wording |
---|---|
|
|
The Layout says to leave s/wnote and also to note the archiving of old warnings. This seems redundant, as s/wnote includes a link to the page history. -- Geniac 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
action=history
to a parameter, oldid=X
, where X is the oldid of the version of the talk page to link to. For example, adding {{subst:s/wnote|oldid=163469919}} on this talk page would make the 'page history' link display as
page history. --
Geniac
18:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)I created the overview page many many moons ago, when I thought it would be possible to have a completely harmonised warning system. Naive I know, but some people still and I think will always prefer the fragmented system, be it because they don't like icons, the wording, etc. Recently a new editor saw this page and started to act upon my suggestions, being bold and all that. I don't want these ideas to cause a problem in future, so I'm tempted to delete this page, unless anyone has any objections. I could pass it by WP:MFD, but you lot have more idea about what this relates to than there. Cheers Khu kri 12:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
warning
warning block
Removing the numbering system and using underlined headers for each of the months. -- Hdt83 Chat 02:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
warning : comment :: another comment warning warning
Lisatwo 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
We could change the code so it puts the numbering there automatically, see code in my sandbox. Oyster guitarist 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ uw-vandalism1}} contains the html tag
<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 -->.
Would it be possible to add
<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 <includeonly>{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}</includeonly> -->
<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 October 2007 -->? Would it be possible to add it to all of the user warning templates? PxMa 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Including the <!-- Date:{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}/{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} --> would be extremely helpful for anti vandal tools though. PxMa 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Apperently writing <!-- Date:{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}/{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} -->, doesn't work. It treats {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} as how it treats text, so this idea won't work.-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions) 23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Didn't work here.-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions) 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it, all I see is the UN-subst version of it.-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions) 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone asked why yet ... ? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 23:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
/<!-- Template:uw-[a-z]*(\d)(im)? -->.*(\d{2}):(\d{2}), (\d+) ([a-zA-Z]+) (\d{4}) \(UTC\)/iU
It seems like {{ uw-tempabuse}} and {{ uw-wrongsummary}}, both user warnings with long template names, could use some shortcuts to make it easier to use these two warnings. How about {{ uw-ta}} for template abuse and {{ uw-ws}} for false edit summaries? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Done It seems like no one opposes, so shortcuts for wrongsummary and tempabuse have been created.
Hydrogen Iodide
(HI!)
04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we have some standard warnings for this category? There appears to be a non-standard one ({{ attack}}) but it could do with being brought within the folds of uw-* with relevant levels including a single issue warning. → AA ( talk) — 13:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking through the proposed changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview, and would like to start clearing the backlog. It seems like work on this has stalled recently. Is there any reason for this, or am I OK to go ahead and implement changes? I'll make a start on it, but I'm happy to revert if there are any objections. Papa November ( talk) 12:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What do people think?
{{ User:Asenine/Userboxes/UserWarnings}}
![]() |
This user is a member of the user warnings wikiproject. |
Thoughts?
Ase nine (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of creating a new warning tag, aimed at pages being used to host personal website content (blogs, personal Wikis, etc.) which don't quite seem to fall under the exact wording of {{ uw-socialnetwork}}. Since I know diddly about tag design, I simply copied {{ uw-socialnetwork}} and altered the wording slightly.
So:
1) Good idea generally? 2) Did I screw anything up?
-- Calton | Talk 14:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, this looks like an intersting group. I love all these warnings and want to join this project. Is anybody allowed to join or only by invitation? Thx for answerin. Stupid2 ( talk) 09:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. I had recently noticed that {{ uw-vandalism4}} had the |left in it again, breaking the numbered layout. I deleted it only to have it replaced in less than 24 hours diff. In examining the template's history it seems that it was put in there on 24 July 2007 diff , just a couple of weeks after we had all decided to eliminate all the |lefts from the templates. It was also removed once on 20 September 2007 only to have it put back in again in similarly short order diff.
The 24 July edit didn't say that the |left was being put back in. I just spent some time searching the archives and I can't find where we decided to put the |left into the level 4 templates. Did I just miss it? I did take a semi-wikibreak during and for several weeks after the High Holidays, so maybe I did. All I know is that I've had *much* more success in getting sysops over at AIV to block users when I implement the numbered format versus any other way and I don't like to see the format broken. Cheers! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
|left
s, and I still support it unless some other issue has been brought up. It's not consistent to keep it in some and not others anyway. –
Pomte
03:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi can we but the left code back in? THere is a ugly gap in the icons that messes up the text. Stupid2 ( talk) 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the reason I'd say that many people and bots don't use the format is because they likely don't know it exists. It's not posted at WP:UTM but rather only at our own project page. If the suggested format were to be placed on WP:UTM, I'd be willing to bet cash you'd see the usage go way up. Also, I'll say again that given the choice of abandoning the numbered list or the cutesy icons, my vote would be to ditch the icons. I don't see what all the obsession is about a nearly imperceptible gap in the lines of text, especially since so many editors' own signatures (see above) cause an even worse gap in the line spacing. — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or do we seem to have two unconnected archives? Our latest archive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archive 1 does not appear to be connected to our previous archive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archives. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What would everyone think of adding a diff= parameter to warning templates? — Animum ( talk) 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 7#Adding a link to the relevant edit (e.g._vandalism). Anomie ⚔ 13:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
VandalProof adds a link to the diff after the subst'd warning. Anti-vandalism bots parse VandalProof warnings just fine: it's the <!-- Level --> and the timestamp (18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)) that they parse. Other semi-automated vandal software could add a link to the diff without needing it to be part of the template. Gracenotes T § 18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 2#Template:Notasocialnetwork with proposed merge to {{ Uw-socialnetwork}}. – Pomte 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite often a joker edits several articles in a minute or two. Can someone please upgrade the warning template, so that, e.g., the syntax
would produce smth like
Thank you, `' Míkka >t 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Apperently
Template:Talk-vandal1,
Template:Talk-vandal2,
Template:Talk-vandal3, and
Template:Talk-vandal4 have not been unified with the uw-
prefix. Is this another missed one, or is it suppost to be like this?--
Sunny910910 (
talk|
Contributions)
02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
When we revert vandalism by someone who already received a level 4 warning, any other warnings make it seem like, "Oh, we didn't really mean it when we said that was your last warning," like the parent who says, "This is the last time I'm going to tell you" five times before taking action. What about something like this? [12] Another big reason for suggesting this: So any admin responding to the AIV could see at a glance that the level 4 warning was for a violation earlier than the last one.
When a vandal keeps vandalizing the same article, I've seen admins make the mistake of thinking an edit since the warning was actually the edit for which they'd been warned, in which case the admin fails to block. If the AIV process consistently worked as smoothly and quickly as possible, nothing like this would be needed, but that's just not the case. Sometimes it takes a bit for the admin to research the case. In the meantime, the vandal just keeps vandalizing. This isn't just about the message we send the vandal. It's also about the message we send to any other users who might see all those pages where somebody got a "last" warning followed by several more warnings.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Doczilla ( talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I mentioned this quite a while back, but since the project was started how ever long ago, and it's over a year since we went live with the uw- system of warnings, I think the project should move over to WP:UTM. Most of the die hards here and in UTM have both pages in their watchlists, but for those not in the know it means we have two points of interaction to discuss templated warnings, which is never ideal. The main goal of having a standardised system has been achieved for quite along time, and the warnings are stable.
Yes the old system does still exist, but you can never please all of the people all of them time, and leaving them where they are doesn't do any harm (yes I know of this), though we've tried to incorporate many of the points as possible, optional icons etc.
This project will continue to malinger along, and looking through the talkpages more and more questions are being addressed at UTM, so I think it's time we archived, moved it all over, merge any relevant parts on to the UTM page and then redirect. What do you think
Just a trip down memory lane for some of you as I was looking through the talkpages, look at some of the names who have gone.
Cheers Khu kri 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Are templated warning messages intended to be signed? I want to post a warning at User talk:98.207.49.103 about this edit, but I'm not sure I've got the procedure down yet. -- DocumentN ( talk) 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The current article says 'Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings".'. Does that apply even when adding a warning to a talk page for the first time? -- DocumentN ( talk) 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I’ve been studying these warnings when I have the time. The few I’ve looked at could be more clear about what they are, should include proof of what they claim, should explain how to improve, should all assume good faith, should be more polite, and should admit to being an opinion. I think they should admit to being an opinion -- because when someone says you did something when you don’t think you did, you feel like it’s a personal attack. I therefore will suggest ideas for improving the wording and usage of the warnings when I think of them. -- Chuck Marean 09:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just been to Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview, that place seems pretty full. I would like to help on some of the redirects (such as template:bv--> template:uw-vandalism3) but some of those still seem to be in use, should I be bold and redirect them anyways or is more discussion needed?-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions| Guest) 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In the subst part, instead of just the article name and additional text, why not add the diff into it too? It could get a little clunky, and people may not enjoy using it, but for some people like me, it'd be nice to have. Maybe TWINKLE could support it in one click still, much like VandalProof.
I ran out of time on my example, so I'll post it as soon as possible. Thanks. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I've been off for awhile....I got to testing with this again, and I realized that these parsered things may not work with external links....Correct me if I'm wrong. Here you can find a version of a UW that I've been messing around with to see if I could get it to work. Feel free to edit it. When you think you may have it, just type in {{subst:User:Kornfan71/Sandbox|PARAMETERS HERE}} on this page and click the preview button. I'll try working with it and see what I get. Post on my talk page if you get anywhere with it. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks! I'd like your opinion on something. Recently, I've been having some success with my own combined {{ uw-test1}} and {{ welcome}} template. Of the hundred or so people I've used it on, virtually all have stopped (same as happens with test1, I'd imagine) but some have gone on to be surprisingly productive good-faith editors. Also, some clear wrong 'uns, who I'd've expected to breeze through the uw-tests in quick time have stopped dead on getting it - and that surprised me.
The template is as follows:
== Welcome to Wikipedia! ==
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and welcome to Wikipedia!Thank you for experimenting with with our encyclopedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Tips on starting your first article
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type
{{helpme}}
here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ~~~~
Pretty basic, but it seems to work. Could a version of this be folded into your uw-series? {{ uw-welcometest}} or the like? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but when I use the "#" symbol to create a numbered list in warning sections on user pages as per the standard layout at WP:UW, the numbers aren't showing up anymore with the templates. The count still continues (a non uw template will show the correct number) but the numbers seem to be obscured by the uw templates somehow. For some examples see User talk:167.206.156.241 or User talk:64.68.241.78. Hoping someone more experienced at template coding than myself can fix this. Thanks! — Elipongo ( Talk| contribs) 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>It's still a recommended guideline on the layout, all we decided was that it wasn't to be automaticaly included. The layout is an anathema, but there are some long established editors out there that do adhere to the layout guidelines, and I have to admit pages do look a damn sight smarter when done properly, instead of a blur of warnings. Khu kri 16:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems there are two problems going on here, right? In Internet Explorer, the numbers do not appear when using "left" in the image markup (anyone know why this happens?). In most other browsers, using "left" in the image markup causes line break problems. However, we need the floatleft div there because some people might not put two line breaks after the previous warning, thus causing multiple warnings on a single line. Reducing the image size will work, but it's not a guaranteed solution. Tables are not a clean solution. I personally don't see any reason to make changes if hardly anybody is using ordered lists for warnings. Vandals don't care about how their talk page looks. Warn them and just get on with it. --- RockMFR 02:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. It is far easier to review the warning history of a user if they are neatly ordered and sorted by month. Users should not be forced to use numbered lists, but templates do have to be compatible with them (see documentation). The only solutions I can think of are to either remove the pointless fluffy icons, or use a table format. I'll restore the latter soon if nobody has any other solution. —{ admin} Pathoschild 19:47:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The one-line templates (e.g. {{ uw-v3}} {{ uw-v4}} are shorter than the image, and so subsequent list items are getting starting at the right of the image becauase technically that is where the next line is. Adding <br clear="all" /> to the end of each template seems to solve it. However, this means people will have to type
or the signature has to become part of the template. I'm trying to think of better solutions. – Pomte 10:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
|left
on the image. See
here. However you will see spacing discrepancies especially when you make your window smaller. –
Pomte
11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)<unindent>Then we have the gap between the first and second lines. Unless anyone comes up with another way, I think I'll run AWB through them all in a couple of days and remove the left. It's only a minor aesthetic issue anyway and I think it'll be far less drastic than adding tables to all the warnings than having the signature problem all over again. Khu kri 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Pathoschild has changed the icons sizes from 30px (lv 4) & 25px (lvls 1-3) to 20 px. I have reverted these changes because a consensus to change the icons has not been reached. Plus only the icons in the {{uw-vand}} series have been changed so the other series {{uw-test}}, {{uw-blank}}, etc. still have their original sizes which breaks the original standardization of the icons. Please leave comments or suggestions and disscuss below before changing again as I do not want to be in an edit war. -- Hdt83 Chat 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could I suggest everyone hang off changing reverting templates at will, as there's a risk we're going to start looking bloody stupid to the outside world, and I also had a gut full of reverting changes last night to {{ uw-block3}}. This includes leaving the table changes that Pathos has done as it demonstrates one option open to us but is fairly innocuous to the issuing editor. Over today I will try and find the relevant diff's if I get a change that shows why things have been done, as I said above we are going round in circles here. Open up a discussion and see what everyone, including the regulars at WT:UTM, think about this whole thing. Cheers Khu kri 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Numbered lists are far more useful for quickly viewing warning history than fluffy icons. Although users don't have to use lists, warnings do have to be compatible with such usage.
To avoid all these problems, I suggest we remove the 'info' icons altogether. They break numbered lists, bulleted lists, and indentation, which essentially makes it impossible to organize them neatly. They give Wikipedia a fluffy, amateurish Geocities look (one vandal retorted, "Watch out! He's got rich text editing!"). Combined with a monthly header system and the fact that template warnings should never be used with users that have a lot of non-warning discussion, there is no need to distinguish them from other discussion.
If they don't read their talk messages, a cute little
won't make them do it, but it will make editing harder for some users and reading harder for administrators. —{
admin}
Pathoschild 19:20:11, 03 May 2007 (UTC)
|left
thingie is nice, but to be honest if removing it fixes the lists on short warnings (seems so), better get rid of it. But I think we should either keep it everywhere or remove it from all templates. Don't make assumptions on the length of the warnings. Users can add text at the end, and not everyone has the same screen size. I'm pretty sure the v3 might look big on my old 14'' monitor ;) --
lucasbfr
talk
08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)OK AWB is set up to rock n roll but I'm going to wait until tomorrow morning.
This is only being done to the UW templates listed at WP:UTM. If anyone wants any more mass changes done or doesn't want me to go ahead please leave a message here or on my talk. Khu kri 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Have added no3 above Khu kri 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OK I've spent most of the morning going through all 139 templates. Things I've done are
All the templates even the newer additions are now in my watchlist, even since we created them I've started to see divergence in the system in this short time. I've had to leave personal messages with a number of editors recently who have come by and changed one or two warnings as it suits them (one was blocked ended up permanently), without any forethought for the entire system. If anyof you see this sort of thing please direct them to discuss their changes here or preferably at WP:UTM first. Now for an afternoon of beer n rugby! Khu kri 11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmm... I was wondering on the opportunity to bring the speedy deletion notices (such as {{ nn-warn}}) in the scope of the project, with a shiny (i) icon. I am tagging a lot of articles for speedy deletion these days, and the {{ uw-creation}} series is not clear enough (especially for A7). Do we do a one shoe fits all speedies (the problem being that we will explain the {{ hangon}} part, but not the rationale behind the deletion)? Or we could do a single issue template especially for A7, errrr... {{ uw-a7notice}}? (Or we can leave it as it is, of course, I am merely suggesting ;) -- lucasbfr talk 08:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>I've thought many times about exactly the same thing, and was one of the reasons I asked Ben to sort out his RFC warnings into rfc-. I'd like to see eventually something like;
to name a few. Khu kri 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As it's been talked about on various occasions, just to get the ball rolling I've started listing some of the warnings for speedy deletion and image warnings to get the uw- treatment. Even though these come under talk/user page warnings I still think they shouldn't come under the uw- prefix so I've added as a starter im- & sd- but it's all open to discussion. Again there will be editors who do not want to change the existing systems, so please do not touch any live warnings.
Just add to the list or change them as you see fit, this is by no means a complete list just the first I came up with off the top of my head in a couple of mins. Cheers Khu kri 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The codes listed are the speedy deletion criteria
Speedy code | template |
---|---|
G1 nonsense | {{ sd-nonsense}} |
G2 test | {{ sd-test}} |
G3 vandalism | {{ sd-vandalism}} |
G4 recreation | |
G5 banned, G6 housekeeping G7 author, G8 talk, G9 office | |
G10 | {{ sd-attack}} |
G11 | {{ sd-spam}} |
G12 | {{
sd-copyvio}}
{{ im-copyvio}} |
A1 context | {{ sd-context}} |
A2 | {{ sd-foreign}} |
A3 content | {{ sd-blank}} |
A5 transwikied | |
A7 notable | {{ sd-notable}} |
I1 redundant | |
I2 corrupt/empty | |
I3 bad license | {{ im-badlicense}} |
I4 no license | {{ im-nolicense}} |
I5 unused fair use | |
I6 no fair use rationale | |
I7 bad fair use | {{ im-badfairuse}} |
I8 copy | same as I1? |
User:Sigma 7 is proposing to put the above warning up for TfD, see it's talk page. I've responded with my thoughts there, but it could do with someone elses opinion as I may be too close to the uw- system. Cheers Khu kri 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
<unident> What do you lot reckon I should do to talk pages such as v1 that has comments copy it here? Khu kri 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I started to work a bit on that one. It's a first draft, feel free to comment/rewrite everything ;). The idea is to be able to use the template with or without a header (header=1), with or without an icon (icon=n), and before or after deletion (delete=1). You can see some sample outputs on my sandbox. I am not sure about the wording of the deleted version. -- lucasbfr talk 08:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There is often vandalism being contributed to the WikiCalendar pages. Please create a warning template to warn those who add their own names or names of friends to the births in the year's birthdays, etc. The message that is typically used is "Please do not add yourself or anyone else without a Wikipedia article to the Wikicalendar pages. To have an article, a person must meet the criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Thank you". I am assuming that this message is typed manually. It would be great if there was a template such as uw-wikicalendar, etc. - Gilliam 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added a line to {{ s/wnote}} stating that deleted warnings are viewable in the page's history. I've run across a few people who seem concerned about this and who have been manually adding such a note. — Elipongo ( Talk| contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed plenty of warnings based on non-fair uploading and use... but I can't seem to find one based on unfair use of an already uploaded image. For example, let's say there is a logo for a TV show on Wikipedia, being used (fairly) in that show's article, and a user uses it on their userpage, or another page unfairly. There really isn't much of a notification/warning system for that. I'm just curious as to what you guys think about that. I'd be interested in making one, so I just want to get some feedback about it here first. Thanks! -- HAL2008 03:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There are frequent clearly non notable autobios of junior high school students where, although they totally misunderstand WP, a formal warning such as we have been giving is simply inappropriate--I am thinking particularly of those where they are clearly making a personal statement and while it is embarrassing to us and will be to them, we should not come on the same way we do to corporate spammers. I often improvise something, and many of us also do,, but I think we need a simpler way of doing it with an alternate template for at least "inappropriate article" and I suggest the wording: "I'm sorry, but articles about your accomplishments and biography will have to wait until you become famous, as demonstrated by magazine articles or other reliable sources referring to you and your work. That's the way things work here, so it's been necessary to delete the page {{{}}} But we'd be glad for you to contribute on things that are already notable:" followed by a brief welcome message. DGG 09:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I had concerns regarding this warning given by User:TomTheHand to User:Husond for this good faith edit. The warning given called his actions vandalism which I feel is ALWAYS innapropriate to consider good faith actions vandalism. I confronted User:TomTheHand on his talk page here to which he replied "This template, which was developed by Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings, is the generally accepted response to removal or editing of talk page comments inappropriately." If this is a common practice, it needs to stop. There is no point when a good faith editor should be called a vandal and accused of vandalism. If an edit is ill advised, ask them to stop. Is this truly a common practice? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need separate warnings for userpage vandalism? Why don't we just redirect to the vand series? --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @(Let's Go Yankees!) 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the UPV warnings should stay. It may not be clear to a new user that any edit to a user page could be considered vandalism. A user might add a comment to a user page thinking that they are contributing. Giving the user a uw-v1 isn't really appropriate. The UPV warning is also a good message to give to someone who might have forgotten to login before editing their user page. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Unindent For me, if you would all be happy with it, would just move the old {{ uw-upv1}} --> {{ uw-upv}} with redirect, then redirect everything else over to equivalent vandalism warning for a month or so, then sweep it under the carpet and TfD it. Khu kri 09:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this has been brought up before, but has this project been working with user script projects? I use Twinkle for my vandal-fighting and recently when I mentioned WP:UW over on their talk it seemed they were not aware of the warning layout being used.
AzaToth says he will try and implement UW into Twinkle script, but I was just wondering if other script projects were in a similar situation? Would be good for them to get on board with a standard approach to user warnings. -- Bren talk 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
How come when we removed all the auto signing things from the warnings, we didn't remove them from the block templates? --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
A user created uw-aiv2. Since uw-aiv is a single use warning, and we don't want it to seem like a multi-level one, I renamed it to uw-notaiv, since they have different purposes. I choose it to mean "not [for] aiv." Anyone have a better name? --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone think we should make a uw- template for some re-creating a page after it's been deleted by AFD or something else (see {{ repost}}, the old template). --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
"you may be blocked for repeatedly recreating deleted pages." Also, I still think sp- is better than sd- :) --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I posted about a fair use image warning a while ago, but I think it was buried in other talk comments. Either way, I decided that after a while, it was a good idea to post again. Either way, I'm just wondering if anyone thinks they could be useful, they are located as follows: im-fuir1, imfuir2, im-fuir3, im-fuir4, im-fuir4im The point of these is for them to be used when a user adds an image to a page that is under fair use in certain circumstances, but not in the place that they used it. For example, a user placing a copyrighted image (like a logo for an organization, television show, movie, etc.) on a page where it isn't supposed to be (like their userpage). These templates would be nice notices about that, but also allow to give higher warnings if a user is doing it repeatedly. If a user was placing the images for vandalism, the "uw-image" series would be used instead. I would like to submit these to the User warnings project, and possibly the user warnings system, but I'm pretty sure that the community has to approve these first, so I just would like some thoughts on them, and whether they are allowed to be added to the project. Also, I also would like to know if I should submit these for semi-protection. Thanks! -- HAL2008 talk 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I feel the header assumes that warnings will accumulate; for a first, WP:AGF warning I don't feel the header is really warranted (it looks sort of hungry and might confuse the user herself). Might it be an idea to only add the header after the second or third warning? Phaunt 16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ Talk-vandal1}}
{{ Talk-vandal2}}
{{ Talk-vandal3}}
{{ Talk-vandal4}}
I noticed that a lot of people mess with their talk page and the warnings so I made these. if anyone would like to help out (like add those hand pictures) you can do that if you want. Cheers, JetLover ( Talk) ( Sandbox) 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest the creation of {{ uw-probation}} for warning against vandalism or controversial edits to articles under probation.
Please stop. One or more of your recent edits was to a page which is placed under
article probation. All edits to this page must strictly follow
Wikipedia's rules, especially keeping to a
neutral point of view and not
edit warring. Potentially controversial edits must first be proposed and debated on the talk page. If you continue you will be
blocked from editing. Any editors making disruptive edits to pages on probation may be
banned from those pages on sight.
Is this a good idea? --
h2g2bob (
talk)
22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose a inappropriate edit Summary warning, because some users put inappropriate remarks on edit summaries(even though there contribution was usefull) I have noticed this before and think there should be a warning for this. Oyster guitarst 01:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
<---- I think the template should start with this image, at least for higher level warning templates.
Hydrogen Iodide
02:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we appriciate your recent
useful contributions, the edit summary that you provided, such as the one you made to [[:{{{ARTICLE NAME}}}]],}} was misleading or confusing to other editors. Please enter an
appropriate edit summary for any future edits you make, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Test template. Modified version of {{ uw-vandalism1}}. Hydrogen Iodide 03:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Level l:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we appreciate your recent
useful contributions, the edit summary that you provided, such as the one you made to [[:{{{ARTICLE NAME}}}]],}} was misleading or confusing to other editors. Please enter an
appropriate edit summary for any future edits you make, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Level 2:
Please refrain from making
improper edit summaries to Wikipedia, as you did to [[:{{{ARTICLE NAME}}}]]}}. If you need help with making proper edit summaries, please see
Edit summary. Thank you.
Questions? Comments? Hydrogen Iodide 03:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, I disagree with the 4 levels of warnings. For just about any purpose, 3 levels should be sufficient to get the point across. This applies not only to the discussion above, but to all other user talk page warnings. - Amatulic 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
(I wouldn't include the part about welcome & thanks in this group of templates-- offenders are often just experienced people who forget.) DGG ( talk) 05:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a template that lets the vandal know that he/she has been reported to AIV. Here is what I think it should look like:
You have been reported to
Administrator's intervention against vandalism for your
disruptive edits. The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, you will be
blocked from editing.
I modified the {{ uw-vandalism4}} template a little to get this. I would like some feedback on this proposal from the community. Hydrogen Iodide 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. You know what I just noticed, we don't have a uw-username block template, which is a pretty common reason for blocking. This one wouldn't need the time parameter though, since it's always indefinite. I'll start creating one based on {{ UsernameBlocked}}, and another one based on {{ UsernameHardBlocked}}. The parserfunctions and prettiness wizards will need to do the rest. :) --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed we don't have a notice for not starting new topics on a talk page at the bottom of the talk page, or not starting them with a heading. I've created the proposed notice here. Feel free to improve. Cheers, Mystytopia 01:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a warning for users with mildly inappropriate usernames or names that are neither appropriate nor blatantly offensive. Pretty obvious that this template is derived from {{ unencyclopedic}}. Hydrogen Iodide 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Err... Personally I think it is extremely biting to newcomers. At the moment, I am using {{ UsernameConcern}} which is not covered by WP:UW yet (but probably should, you are right). When a username is clearly inappropriate, there is no need for a warning (since there is not much the user can do to change this), these get blocked on sight at WP:UAA. When it is not clearly inappropriate, then I think a template more in the {{ UsernameConcern}} would be better, because the user might not know he did something wrong. -- lucasbfr talk 08:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I've finished making a one-time notice/warning for fair use polcies on images. You can see the current one at: Uw-fuir. And the multiple level ones I made first (which if they are not used might as well be CSDed to save serverspace) A small sample follows: NOTE: Please note that this is the base version, the specific image name as well as a custom message may be added, just like all other warning templates.
An image or media file has been removed from your userpage, user talk page, or other page because it was licensed as
fair use. Wikipedia's
fair use policy states that Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image, and only if no free equivalent is available. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people.. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see
Wikipedia's fair use policy and an
accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Further use of thiese images will be considered
vandalism, and shall be treated as such.Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
-- HAL2008 talk Contributions 06:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
See here: User:Hdt83/Sandbox. Basically you add a <br><br> at the end of each template and the left float for icons works beautifully. What do you think? -- Hdt83 Chat 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What about something like this? Instead of a <br><br> at the end, add a single </br>. The icon floats to the left correctly. -- Hdt83 Chat 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hdt83 - You missed a few templates when undoing your change. Please double-check. Anomie 13:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ Uw-ublock}} has been created, but we still need to uw-ify {{ UsernameHardBlocked}}. We could either use the current one, or the shorter one that I've made here, and rename it to something like {{ uw-uhblock}}. R Parlate Contribs @ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a new proposal for template layout that fixes the left float problem. The original layout is used by some users mainly because it helps organize templates neatly. The problem with it is that the left float doesn't work as seen in the previous sections and archives of this talk page. The new layout I propose helps correct the left float issue that affects the current layout due to MediaWiki restrictions. It basically adds a <br> at te end of each warning/comment. Example here. Any comments? -- Hdt83 Chat 08:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Current Layout
== Warnings == {{subst:s/wnote}} ===July 2007=== Warning <br> Warning <br> Warning <br> Warning <br> Block ===August 2007=== warning <br> :Comments about warning <br> ::comment <br> warning <br> Block
I noticed some vandals like to blank their usertalk page after they've been blocked or replace the page with attacks directed at Wikipedia. I think the {{ blocked}} template and any other similar templates should have a notice or a line that says: Note that if you blank your usertalk page and/or issue attacks directed Wikipedia, you will not be able to edit the talkpage and thus lose your ability to request unblock. So, how about it? Hydrogen Iodide 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there wasn't a uw template for users who are using Wikipedia as a social network (ex. only making userpage edits, etc) so I created one. User:Hdt83/socialnetwork. Feel free to improve on it and discuss. -- Hdt83 Chat 07:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, Having done warnings for nigh on 10 months I've removed myself from active in this project, to start working elsewhere. I won't be keeping an eye on the pages as I'll want to dabble, but any questions don't hesitate to ask. Traa fer now. Khu kri 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the stop hand icon is the biggest (30px) and used for the last warning. I have a new proposal that would remove that extra whitespace that occurs when the sentence gets too long and it also looks better and emphasizes the "last warning" part. -- Hdt83 Chat 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Without the <br>:
This is your last warning. The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
test, you will be
blocked from editing. --
Hdt83
Chat
21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
With <br>:
This is your last warning.
The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
test, you will be
blocked from editing. --
Hdt83
Chat
21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Heres how they look with the other warnings together:
For the other warnings using the stop hand we just put the left back in. Without <br>
With <br>
New proposed layout
The numbered list is there and is a lot neater courtesy of the added space between each warning. The left float works correctly for all of the icons and everything is neat. This may be a good solution. Any comments? -- Hdt83 Chat 05:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone actually using the recommended layout? Is there a consensus that it is the preferred layout? -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should change the {{ uw-afd}} templates so they can be used for warning users for removing deletion notices from any page. I mean, deletion notices could be removed from any page, not just articles. If changed, the templates could look like the following below. Feel free to improve:
Level 1:
Welcome to Wikipedia. It would be appreciated if you would not remove deletion notices from pages, or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create
consensus. If you oppose the deletion of a page, please
comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.
Level 2:
Please do not remove deletion notices from pages or remove other people's comments in deletion debates. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.
Level 3:
Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Level 4:
This is your last warning.
The next time you remove deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Cheers, Lig hts 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The warning levels say that you will be blocked if you vandalize again but I think that should be changed to may because sometimes you will not always be blocked like if you gave a bad AIV report. Oyster guitarist 20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
it should be changed to this:
Please stop. If you continue removing deletion notices or comments from deletion debates, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
It sounds like a good idea for lv3 warnings. For lv4, it should still be "will" since it already says "last warning". -- Hdt83 Chat 08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This all comes down to editors issing lvl 4 templates, wrongly I might add, as the first template. If someone receives the full monty of warnings, there is no ambiguity about them being blocked and very little chance of false AIV reports being issued. Editors who have been issued with warnings through misunderstanding or a content dispute, usually try and enter into dialogue with their warner prior to it getting to lvl4. Now if someone is given a lvl 4 which says they will be blocked and then for one reason or other a block isn't ensuing, this I would suggest is the fault of the issuer and not the system. This is why lvl 3 is you maybe blocked and lvl 4 is you will be blocked. For the amount of times this would be erroneous, I would suggest leaving it as 'will be' blocked, as this is applicable to way more vandals than problems that might arise. Cheers
Khu
kri
11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I just created the single issue notice Template:Uw-3o, for editors who list a dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion in a wrong way. This happens to about three editors a day. I would be glad if an experienced user warning editor could look over and see if I've done this right. Thanks, User:Krator ( t c) 18:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have created Template:Uw-recentblockwarn because often I see users who are blocked for vandalism of Wikipedia come back almost immediately after being blocked. Often, they vandalize the same article in a similar fashion before the block which indicates a persistent vandal. This template was designed for IP addresses where vandalism often comes back after a block and AGF is out of the question as it is obviously the same user (most IPs cant be indef blocked). What do you think of it? -- Hdt83 Chat 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As I've worked with most of you for a while and respect your opinions (even though I've made myself absent from here) I thought I get some input from you lot. I came across this whilst blocking someone today, and I know we've refused all templates of this sort in the past. Is this an MfD case or the fact it's in so call user space give it any protection User:Ratiocinate/admin-report. Thoughts please? Cheers as ever Khu kri 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I proposed the addition of two templates to UTM on the UTM talk page. I'm not certain which of these talk pages is more appropriate for the proposal, which follows up on various conversations here and there, so I am cross posting here. Feel free to comment.-- Kubigula ( talk) 19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've found myself having to explain quite a bit lately why FU images are not acceptable on BLPs, I just made a template for it at {{ User:Lucid/blpi}}. {{ uw-blpi}} would be a more convineant link, as well as having the link available through TW, but mainly I think the project might benefit from it. -- lucid 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I get sick of anonymous vandalizers that continuously blank out their talk page of multiple warnings (about 3 or more). Although this isn't against policy, it is very inconvenient for users warning people since we have to look at the history of the talk page, or we sometimes think that this is a first offense while they actually should get a level 4 warning. Why not try something like this?
Welcome to Wikipedia. It appears that you have had multiple warnings in the past that you now deleted. This change has been
reverted so that users will not incorrectly warn you in the future. Although deleting your warnings isn't against
Wikipedia policy, try to
archive your talk page instead to make it easier to see your warning history. Thank you.
This would only be a notice, and would not get any higher than this level, and a user couldn't get blocked for this offense, it would just be a reminder to archive rather than blank the page. Leave your comments please! —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have recently noticed vandals, especially sockpuppets, like to place {{ block}} on unblocked users, including users that don't have a single warning and do RC patrol. It seems like the vandal wants to scare users by putting that template on the user or user talk page. I think there should be a warning or at least a notice to users who intentionally misuse the template in such a manner. Hydrogen Iodide 04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Should it be a single template or a series? Oyster guitarist 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I made a bold revision of the template - feel free to revert if you don't like it. I think it should be flexible enough to be a first or subsequent warning, so I removed the "welcome" and tried to strike a balance between a level one and a level two. The prior version was more of a mix between a level one and a level three. As I said, feel free to revert or edit mercilessly.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the template so far (no change):
A recent edit that you made has been
reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a
warning template. Please note that inappropriate use of warning templates may appear to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Hydrogen Iodide 02:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK - you guys have made your point. I think several of the above could have been handled with the regular vandalism templates, but there does seem to be some demand for a template misuse template. Unless there are additional insights, I will modify it to a true level one template. Template misuse beyond that should, IMO, be dealt with as regular vandalism or with a personal message.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hrm. I see no reason why the {{ uw-v}} series won't cover this. If it's vandalism, it's vandalism. Simple as that. Gracenotes T § 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The template so far (about 2/3 month later):
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been
reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a
blocking or warning template. Please use
the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our
introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hydrogen Iodide 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
See here Khu kri 06:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
After seeing many blocked vandals playing and fooling around with {{ unblock}}, I think there should be a sentence added to the block templates. It should read something like: "Please note misuse of {{ unblock}} will result in talk page protection and therefore you will lose the ability to request an unblock" or something like that. I think this will let the person who is requesting an unblock know that abusing the template will result in loss of unblock requesting. Comments? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been modifying IP talk pages per the warning format in this article. However, I have noticed the pound sign is not always creating a numbered list. Here is an example. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindEagle ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages was in the scope of this project. If so, your input would be appreciated here. Thank you. - Rocket000 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If a user is being generally uncivil, but not at users, which warning would i use? I think AGF is only if they are uncilvil towards users. Or should a uw template be created on civility in comments? Simply south 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. However, please remain
civil when commenting on an article's talk page. Thank you. Thank you..
Some minor fixes, how does it look. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The {{ uw-test1}} thanks the user for experimenting with Wikipedia, and gently points them towards the sandbox. This is as it should be: we do want users to experiment with editing, and hope that their experiments will encourage them to become productive editors.
However, when an article name is provided as an optional parameter, the template, as it is currently written, thanks the user for experimenting with that article. In particular, the current text of {{subst:uw-test1|Example}}
reads:
“ | Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Example on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. | ” |
This seems a bit silly. On one hand we seemingly thank the user for choosing Example as the page to experiment on; on the other, we later say they should use the sandbox instead. I recently modified the template so that, given the same parameter, it instead read:
“ | Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Example worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. | ” |
However, Khukri reverted the edit, suggesting that I discuss it here first. I'm therefore doing that now. So, does anyone see anything wrong with the change? — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the responses. I've (re)made the change. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Messages should be removed without archival after three months or less, depending on the number of warnings. In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed."
Anyone know which vandal tool keeps adding the If this a shared IP... comment to the bottom of every template. I'm now deleting them when I see them, as it messes up warning layouts, and if the statement is on the page once and it has been ignored there is no need to add it to every bloody template. That is what anonymous IP headers are all for. Khu kri 12:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This comment was originally a reply in the thread above. It's enough different from the other questions that it seems better as a separate thread.
I remain unconvinced about the numbering. I've now seen it on some pages and not on others. I've not yet seen a page where the numbering made the warnings easier to scan. I don't think that it is just the technical layout problem that was addressed before - it's a more fundamental question of whether it helps future readers or not. So far, even where implemented perfectly, it's making the pages harder for me to read, not easier.
Rossami
(talk)
15:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone recently pointed me to this page. I've been patrolling for vandalism for a long time and appreciate the need for standardization, especially on anon user talk pages. But I strongly dislike some of the advice given in the Layout section. Specifically:
Thanks for your attention. Rossami (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Current wording |
Proposed wording |
---|---|
|
|
The Layout says to leave s/wnote and also to note the archiving of old warnings. This seems redundant, as s/wnote includes a link to the page history. -- Geniac 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
action=history
to a parameter, oldid=X
, where X is the oldid of the version of the talk page to link to. For example, adding {{subst:s/wnote|oldid=163469919}} on this talk page would make the 'page history' link display as
page history. --
Geniac
18:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)I created the overview page many many moons ago, when I thought it would be possible to have a completely harmonised warning system. Naive I know, but some people still and I think will always prefer the fragmented system, be it because they don't like icons, the wording, etc. Recently a new editor saw this page and started to act upon my suggestions, being bold and all that. I don't want these ideas to cause a problem in future, so I'm tempted to delete this page, unless anyone has any objections. I could pass it by WP:MFD, but you lot have more idea about what this relates to than there. Cheers Khu kri 12:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
warning
warning block
Removing the numbering system and using underlined headers for each of the months. -- Hdt83 Chat 02:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
warning : comment :: another comment warning warning
Lisatwo 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
We could change the code so it puts the numbering there automatically, see code in my sandbox. Oyster guitarist 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ uw-vandalism1}} contains the html tag
<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 -->.
Would it be possible to add
<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 <includeonly>{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}</includeonly> -->
<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 October 2007 -->? Would it be possible to add it to all of the user warning templates? PxMa 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Including the <!-- Date:{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}/{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} --> would be extremely helpful for anti vandal tools though. PxMa 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Apperently writing <!-- Date:{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}/{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} -->, doesn't work. It treats {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} as how it treats text, so this idea won't work.-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions) 23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Didn't work here.-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions) 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it, all I see is the UN-subst version of it.-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions) 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone asked why yet ... ? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 23:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
/<!-- Template:uw-[a-z]*(\d)(im)? -->.*(\d{2}):(\d{2}), (\d+) ([a-zA-Z]+) (\d{4}) \(UTC\)/iU
It seems like {{ uw-tempabuse}} and {{ uw-wrongsummary}}, both user warnings with long template names, could use some shortcuts to make it easier to use these two warnings. How about {{ uw-ta}} for template abuse and {{ uw-ws}} for false edit summaries? Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Done It seems like no one opposes, so shortcuts for wrongsummary and tempabuse have been created.
Hydrogen Iodide
(HI!)
04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we have some standard warnings for this category? There appears to be a non-standard one ({{ attack}}) but it could do with being brought within the folds of uw-* with relevant levels including a single issue warning. → AA ( talk) — 13:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking through the proposed changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview, and would like to start clearing the backlog. It seems like work on this has stalled recently. Is there any reason for this, or am I OK to go ahead and implement changes? I'll make a start on it, but I'm happy to revert if there are any objections. Papa November ( talk) 12:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What do people think?
{{ User:Asenine/Userboxes/UserWarnings}}
![]() |
This user is a member of the user warnings wikiproject. |
Thoughts?
Ase nine (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of creating a new warning tag, aimed at pages being used to host personal website content (blogs, personal Wikis, etc.) which don't quite seem to fall under the exact wording of {{ uw-socialnetwork}}. Since I know diddly about tag design, I simply copied {{ uw-socialnetwork}} and altered the wording slightly.
So:
1) Good idea generally? 2) Did I screw anything up?
-- Calton | Talk 14:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, this looks like an intersting group. I love all these warnings and want to join this project. Is anybody allowed to join or only by invitation? Thx for answerin. Stupid2 ( talk) 09:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. I had recently noticed that {{ uw-vandalism4}} had the |left in it again, breaking the numbered layout. I deleted it only to have it replaced in less than 24 hours diff. In examining the template's history it seems that it was put in there on 24 July 2007 diff , just a couple of weeks after we had all decided to eliminate all the |lefts from the templates. It was also removed once on 20 September 2007 only to have it put back in again in similarly short order diff.
The 24 July edit didn't say that the |left was being put back in. I just spent some time searching the archives and I can't find where we decided to put the |left into the level 4 templates. Did I just miss it? I did take a semi-wikibreak during and for several weeks after the High Holidays, so maybe I did. All I know is that I've had *much* more success in getting sysops over at AIV to block users when I implement the numbered format versus any other way and I don't like to see the format broken. Cheers! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
|left
s, and I still support it unless some other issue has been brought up. It's not consistent to keep it in some and not others anyway. –
Pomte
03:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi can we but the left code back in? THere is a ugly gap in the icons that messes up the text. Stupid2 ( talk) 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the reason I'd say that many people and bots don't use the format is because they likely don't know it exists. It's not posted at WP:UTM but rather only at our own project page. If the suggested format were to be placed on WP:UTM, I'd be willing to bet cash you'd see the usage go way up. Also, I'll say again that given the choice of abandoning the numbered list or the cutesy icons, my vote would be to ditch the icons. I don't see what all the obsession is about a nearly imperceptible gap in the lines of text, especially since so many editors' own signatures (see above) cause an even worse gap in the line spacing. — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or do we seem to have two unconnected archives? Our latest archive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archive 1 does not appear to be connected to our previous archive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archives. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What would everyone think of adding a diff= parameter to warning templates? — Animum ( talk) 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 7#Adding a link to the relevant edit (e.g._vandalism). Anomie ⚔ 13:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
VandalProof adds a link to the diff after the subst'd warning. Anti-vandalism bots parse VandalProof warnings just fine: it's the <!-- Level --> and the timestamp (18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)) that they parse. Other semi-automated vandal software could add a link to the diff without needing it to be part of the template. Gracenotes T § 18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 2#Template:Notasocialnetwork with proposed merge to {{ Uw-socialnetwork}}. – Pomte 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite often a joker edits several articles in a minute or two. Can someone please upgrade the warning template, so that, e.g., the syntax
would produce smth like
Thank you, `' Míkka >t 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Apperently
Template:Talk-vandal1,
Template:Talk-vandal2,
Template:Talk-vandal3, and
Template:Talk-vandal4 have not been unified with the uw-
prefix. Is this another missed one, or is it suppost to be like this?--
Sunny910910 (
talk|
Contributions)
02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
When we revert vandalism by someone who already received a level 4 warning, any other warnings make it seem like, "Oh, we didn't really mean it when we said that was your last warning," like the parent who says, "This is the last time I'm going to tell you" five times before taking action. What about something like this? [12] Another big reason for suggesting this: So any admin responding to the AIV could see at a glance that the level 4 warning was for a violation earlier than the last one.
When a vandal keeps vandalizing the same article, I've seen admins make the mistake of thinking an edit since the warning was actually the edit for which they'd been warned, in which case the admin fails to block. If the AIV process consistently worked as smoothly and quickly as possible, nothing like this would be needed, but that's just not the case. Sometimes it takes a bit for the admin to research the case. In the meantime, the vandal just keeps vandalizing. This isn't just about the message we send the vandal. It's also about the message we send to any other users who might see all those pages where somebody got a "last" warning followed by several more warnings.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Doczilla ( talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I mentioned this quite a while back, but since the project was started how ever long ago, and it's over a year since we went live with the uw- system of warnings, I think the project should move over to WP:UTM. Most of the die hards here and in UTM have both pages in their watchlists, but for those not in the know it means we have two points of interaction to discuss templated warnings, which is never ideal. The main goal of having a standardised system has been achieved for quite along time, and the warnings are stable.
Yes the old system does still exist, but you can never please all of the people all of them time, and leaving them where they are doesn't do any harm (yes I know of this), though we've tried to incorporate many of the points as possible, optional icons etc.
This project will continue to malinger along, and looking through the talkpages more and more questions are being addressed at UTM, so I think it's time we archived, moved it all over, merge any relevant parts on to the UTM page and then redirect. What do you think
Just a trip down memory lane for some of you as I was looking through the talkpages, look at some of the names who have gone.
Cheers Khu kri 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Are templated warning messages intended to be signed? I want to post a warning at User talk:98.207.49.103 about this edit, but I'm not sure I've got the procedure down yet. -- DocumentN ( talk) 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The current article says 'Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings".'. Does that apply even when adding a warning to a talk page for the first time? -- DocumentN ( talk) 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I’ve been studying these warnings when I have the time. The few I’ve looked at could be more clear about what they are, should include proof of what they claim, should explain how to improve, should all assume good faith, should be more polite, and should admit to being an opinion. I think they should admit to being an opinion -- because when someone says you did something when you don’t think you did, you feel like it’s a personal attack. I therefore will suggest ideas for improving the wording and usage of the warnings when I think of them. -- Chuck Marean 09:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just been to Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview, that place seems pretty full. I would like to help on some of the redirects (such as template:bv--> template:uw-vandalism3) but some of those still seem to be in use, should I be bold and redirect them anyways or is more discussion needed?-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions| Guest) 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In the subst part, instead of just the article name and additional text, why not add the diff into it too? It could get a little clunky, and people may not enjoy using it, but for some people like me, it'd be nice to have. Maybe TWINKLE could support it in one click still, much like VandalProof.
I ran out of time on my example, so I'll post it as soon as possible. Thanks. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I've been off for awhile....I got to testing with this again, and I realized that these parsered things may not work with external links....Correct me if I'm wrong. Here you can find a version of a UW that I've been messing around with to see if I could get it to work. Feel free to edit it. When you think you may have it, just type in {{subst:User:Kornfan71/Sandbox|PARAMETERS HERE}} on this page and click the preview button. I'll try working with it and see what I get. Post on my talk page if you get anywhere with it. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks! I'd like your opinion on something. Recently, I've been having some success with my own combined {{ uw-test1}} and {{ welcome}} template. Of the hundred or so people I've used it on, virtually all have stopped (same as happens with test1, I'd imagine) but some have gone on to be surprisingly productive good-faith editors. Also, some clear wrong 'uns, who I'd've expected to breeze through the uw-tests in quick time have stopped dead on getting it - and that surprised me.
The template is as follows:
== Welcome to Wikipedia! ==
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and welcome to Wikipedia!Thank you for experimenting with with our encyclopedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Tips on starting your first article
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type
{{helpme}}
here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ~~~~
Pretty basic, but it seems to work. Could a version of this be folded into your uw-series? {{ uw-welcometest}} or the like? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)