![]() | 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 |
The issuing of any vandalism warnings to shared IP addresses appears to be an utter waste of time, and make the person doing the warning look foolish. Such warnings appear to be unenforceable.
The shared IP address User talk:138.23.89.187 is registered to University of California, Riverside. The shared IP address User_talk:204.69.4.82 is registered to Riverside Community College District. Both Riverside California addresses have repeatedly vandalized Garrison Keillor, Lake Wobegon, A Prairie Home Companion, and A Prairie Home Companion (film).
After reverting the vandalism and posting unheeded escalating warnings, I requested IAV. That request was rejected. After follow-up discussion at User_talk:King_of_Hearts#vand_from_a_school, I have learned never again to waste my time issuing vandalism warnings to shared IP addresses. And because such warnings are unenforceable, I have also retracted some of my so-called "final warnings" from User_talk:204.69.4.82#March_2008. I feel utterly stupid issuing a "final warning" that can be repeatedly violated with impunity.
I'll continue reverting vandalism, and continue issuing vandalism warnings to non-shared IP addresses. Just not to shared IP addresses. I'm through seeing several of my own so-called "final warnings" go unenforced despite my best efforts. -- Art Smart ( talk) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In the past couple of days I have been forced to decline several block requests on WP:AIV because the reporting editor issued a bunch a warnings simultaneously. That is, they gave escalating levels of warnings for each case of vandalism reverted, regardless of the fact that the IP address stopped editing hours before.
Here is an example situation:
While it is possible that I missed something, in reviewing WP:UTM I do not see any explicit statement that escalated levels of warning should only be used if the vandal ignores a previous warning and persists in vandalizing after receiving that warning message. Does anyone have an idea for ways to cleverly phrase this? Everything I think up sounds like I am pandering to the lowest common denominator. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest adding the following text to the templates {{ uw-uncen1}} and {{ uw-uncen2}}:
"If you personally find content objectionable, Wikipedia can be personalised to adhere to your cultural norms. Details are explained here."
or
"Wikipedia can be personalised to ahere to your cultural norms."
or
"You may have removed a picture because it violates your cultural norms. Wikipedia does not endorse unilateral enforcement of cultural norms. It can, however be personalised to your needs."
I feel that many users are geniunely concerned about their children seeing certain articles, and that most a not aware of the above option, which is why they resort to deleting info. I am afraid that such users will stop using wikipedia altogether if they are fobbed off with a "zero censorship" warning. Informing them about the self-censorship option will make them feel more in control, and they will be more likely to stay.
Cambrasa (
talk)
13:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are four templates and the results they give:
{{subst:vandal1}}
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
- - - - - -
{{subst:vandal2}}
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
- - - - - -
{{subst:vandal3}}
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, you will be
blocked from editing.
- - - - - -
{{subst:vandal4}}
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing.
- - - - - -
Note that number 4 doesn't work. It works if "vandal4" is changed to "uw-vandal4".
{{subst:uw-vandal4}}
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, you will be
blocked from editing.
- - - - - -
Is there any good reason why 4 is different? (other than it was coded differently.)
I'm asking this because it would be a bit simpler if they were uniform. Wanderer57 ( talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I used {{welcome}} on a bunch of new editor talk pages. I didn't use {{subst:W-basic}}. (Sorry.) What should I do? Should I go back over my edits and change them? Or should I leave it to a bot? Thanks. and I checked the FAQ Dan Beale-Cocks 10:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the nice things about Wikia are the specialized wikis, many of which allow content that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, such as game guides or articles on minor fictional characters. I have created a new template ({{ nn-wikia}}) for telling users that the content they added is more appropriate for Wikia.
What do you guys think? -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we need unique warnings for those who make politically-motivated edits? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey people, yesterday i brought up an issue at the LGBT wikiproject. Im not a member myself but i thought this was quite important. I noticed that wikipedia has a template aimed at fighting racist edits yet there is no such template for edits against sexual orientation. As both are just as bad as one another and since discrimination does (unfortunately) occure on wikipedia we need a template that is used in the same manner as the racism template. The consensus was that a template is needed and there seems to be an agreement that no harm can come of it. I would like you to read the following link and help impliment a new template that will hopefully be taken as seriously as the racism template. This is the link. Cheers. -- Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to copy this discussion to WT:UTM, as that is the main warning template discussion page. This Wikiproject page is not very active anymore as its work is pretty much done.-- Kubigula ( talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK , no problem. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between the template {{ uw-v4}} and {{ uw-bv}}? They both seem similar since both of them could function as final warnings. Could these two templates be merged together? I asked something similar to this elsewhere but nobody could come up with an answer. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 06:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 03:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I started a thread here describing what I think might be a good modification for level 4 warnings, but thus far the proposal has not received any attention. So I figured I's mention it here. Please comment over there if so inclined. Yilloslime (t) 00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Since a lot of people arent following the warning layout, I made a layout template @ uw-layout. Now we can encourage ppl to use the layout. Stupid2 ( talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The second sentence Any further vandalism will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. seems a bit awkward and grammatically incorrect, especially the part your being blocked (or you being blocked if it is a typo). This sentence should be reworded to something like Any further vandalism will result in a block from editing Wikipedia or Any further vandalism will result in a revocation of editing privileges. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we should still try to use "vandalism" in uw-v4 now that the template uses the word "vandalize" again? I'm ok with the way it is right now, but I think some editors might want the results of the discussion incorporated into uw-v4. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 05:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to determine if consensus exists to TFD some uw templates. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:UTM#Requests for Consensus. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
is anybody still using those templates? Agathoclea ( talk) 11:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
With the rather large number of rollbackers and huggle users that are reverting and dolling out warnings, I'm starting to worry about all the old stale warnings being left on IP talk pages. It's more than likely they are driving away some potential editors/readers, but it'd be impossible to judge how many "some" is. Simple scenario, anon goes to the Wiki to read up on some subject, sees they got a message, reads it and the threatened blocking for something they didn't do 3 months ago. After that they usually either then go to the warner and/or leave the project. No matter how well the editor explains to him, they're prolly gonna end up with a sour taste of the Wiki. It'd probably be too impractical to remove all the old warnings now, but what about the possibility of amending the current warnings to say something along the lines of "after X months this warning can be considered invalid/stale" or whatever warning would be appropriate. This little bit wouldn't be applicable for recurring vandals, just those that get 1/2 message and leave. Anyone else's thoughts? -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is ongoing on a rewrite of {{ uw-canvass}} at Template talk:Uw-canvass#Uw-canvass. tgies ( talk) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Please create a template to warn users about excessive internal links-- Ainlina-- Speak to me-- Ask a question-- Praise and criticism 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across an edit that readded an image that had been removed (as there was no fair-use rationale for its inclusion in that article). I looked at WP:WARN to warn the user but I found no template relevant to the issue (the only ones I could find relate to uploading images). I sought help at WP:Media_copyright_questions but they didn't know of a template either. Could one possibly be created by someone familiar in the user-warning-template field? Thanks ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 21:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Wikipedia Arbitration enforcement templates, I see that level 1 warnings like {{ uw-balkans}} are listed there but they are not listed on Category:Standardised user warning templates, but their equivalent leve 2 warning like {{ uw-balkans2}} are the other way around.
Should I go and list all of them on both categories? Or was this done on purpose? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose the creation of {{Uw-notability}}
and {{Uw-unreferenced}}
tags that could be added to a user talk page when an editor tags an article with {{Notability}}
or {{Unreferenced}}
. The point of these user warnings would be to get the user to do something (add references or demonstrate notability) rather than to stop doing something, which is the case with most user warning messages. If I see a problem article which is potentially notable but doesn't really demonstrate it, I would much rather tag it for notability and ask the article's creator to improve it than tag it for speedy deletion and warn the creator that the article might be deleted. {{Uw-notability}}
and {{Uw-unreferenced}}
would be less biting than a speedy deletion warning and might get a better response from the creators of weak articles. --
Eastmain (
talk)
04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
uw-
plus the name of the tag. --
Eastmain (
talk)
16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)How about warnings for uploading images in a pattern of long-term abuse (obviously, we don't look to bite people, but I think we make licensing in-your-face clear when uploading as it is)? Like addition of files for "Wikipedia only" repeatedly and the like. Ian¹³ /t 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added a link to that guide to {{ Uw-block1}}, as has already been done in {{ unblock}}, in MediaWiki:Blockedtext and elsewhere. Are there any objections? If not, I'll make the same addition to the other uw-block templates. Sandstein 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Your input is needed here. Thanks, ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 22:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This page says Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings" but that does not appear to be current practice. What I am seeing (and doing) is putting the warnings in a month and year section. Should I change? Eeekster ( talk) 03:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at WP:VPR#Non-english warning. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 14:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a version of the schoolblock made that could be used in place of it and added to TW? For more details, see here. Regards, لenna vecia 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
In the past, if I've seen an edit reverted by another editor, but that editor failed to add a warning template to the IP's talk page after a substantial period of time, I went ahead and added the warning template myself. Is this okay?
More specifically, if an IP edits unconstructively, but then he reverts his own edit, is it kosher to leave a warning template ({{ uw-test1}} comes to mind) on their talk page? -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
For historical reasons, this project has the shortcut WP:UW, while the actual template overview, which should have much more traffic, has only more complicated shortcuts, such as WP:UWT. Are there any objections against using WP:UW for the overview? — Sebastian 02:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to reduce the mention of "vandal" for three reasons:
For these reasons, I would like to remove the mention of "vandal" from all templates that are not explicitly for vandals. — Sebastian 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I still would prefer this change for the reasons I gave. For me the question is not so much if one can see these things as vandalism (which I arguably did myself, in my example above, by using rollback), but rather if this added text really helps Wikipedia and outweighs the loss of applicability (#2 above). But I am grateful for and respect your continued commitment to this project and won't pursue this any further for now. Please notify me if there are any changes relevant for this issue. — Sebastian 05:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a list of templates using the word "vandal", minus those like {{ uw-aiv}}:
(Those below are likely considered "explicitly for vandals")
This should make it easier to discuss exactly which templates are proposed to be changed. Anomie ⚔ 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed a trend of users creating multiple accounts, especially new users, I and wanted to make a template to ask them what they are up to. The template is Template:uw-multiple-accts. Looking for some feedback on the template, if people like it, I'll try to get aza to add it to twinkle under uw-username. -- Terrillja talk 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that {{Lang1}} comes across very harsh
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English.
for someone who doesn't realize they're making a English variety change. For example in a recent change a brand new user changed "civilisation" to "civilization" but left all the other British English spellings (e.g. honour) intact. So it seems they were just fixing what they saw as a error. Slapping a Respect other people's warning on a newbie who's decided to WP:BOLD is not encouraging. Gerardw ( talk) 12:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
So I'm wondering how I got downgraded to "interested" after all the work I put in? When did this happen, and why? KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that there really is not a good warning for someone using either their OWN user page or OWN talk page in order to attack someone. The closest thing I found is {{ subst:uw-defam1}}, but that doesn't seem right. {{ subst:uw-attack}} is obviously not appropriate because it only refers to other editors. I think we should have one that says something to the affect of "Please do not use your userspace to attack others". Any ideas? Valley2 city‽ 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I was wondering if there was a way that I could include diffs of what a user did that was disruptive or uncivil when using these templates. For example, if someone vandalizes a page, how do I include the diff that shows the vandalism in the warning? Do I need Twinkle or Huggle to do this?-- Disturbed Nerd 999 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the CVU,I would like to make a proposal that this project be made as an independand child project with the CVU as its parent. I believe that user warnings are an important part of countervandalism on wikipedia and therefore the CVU should be the parent project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 February 2009
-- Ipatrol ( talk) 02:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be best listed as a related project, if anything. CVU isn't the general antivandalism club on Wikipedia; it's just an organization dedicated to countering it. UW is a relatively static standardization-related project, not a tool on the paramilitary front of eradicating the ills of vandalism from Wikipedia (or whatever CVU does nowadays). If you'd like to plan a change to a 4im template, this is definitely the place; otherwise, discussing its usage is great for WT:UTM or wherever you want. Gracenotes T § 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I and the other editors at the CVU are working on recasting the CVU, in addition to its traditional role, as a projectspace wikiproject to work through pages related to antivandalism. This process began with a discussion at
WT:CVU and the creation of {{
CVU}}. So that is why I saked for the project parenting, so we may begin that process.--
Ipatrol (
talk)
00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I created {{ uw-legitrevert}} in my userspace because I'm not sure if this is correct, but I believe that it is a breach of the policies and guidelines to revert legitimate edits without explanation. This is why an administrator can revoke rollback permissions for users who abuse the rollback feature, but I believe it is almost as bad to abuse the undo feature because it may deter newcomers who are wondering why their legitimate edits are being reverted, which is why abusing a revert feature of any kind is very disruptive. Comments? -- IRP ☎ 19:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a major flaw with this template. It threatens an editor who may be impolite but not necessarily breaking any policy with an almost immediate block.
Even if we agree we want to make such a threat needs to be supported; hence the template should direct to the relevant policy actually making such an edit summary obligatory. Now it points to general policies; a section where it states not making edit summary is NOT vandalism; and a section about explaining reverts. None of these policies come close to stating that this is a blocking offense. Maing threats you cannot uphold is not a good idea (I would even say that such practice is very very bad practice)
Secondly, while only the most blatant vandalisms get an only warning template, this much much milder offense (if it is a violation of a rule at all) would get a single warning approach. That seems way over the top.
My suggestion, this template shoud be much, much, much more modest in its tone.
Arnoutf (
talk)
21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
For what could be a simple error, which could be resolved with a personal message this template is a nuclear approach "This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits" is equally presumptuous and potentially as bad faith as the initial revert. This template is heavy handed, and certainly isn't a first step in a misunderstanding over what could be a poor intentioned rollback/revert. Only after dialogue had failed or it had been repeated would one reach for this. No from me. Khu kri 23:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The ONLY WARNING language is far too harsh. Assume good faith, and start with a friendly warning. 1 revert can't be a pattern of bad behavior, and we shouldn't treat it as such. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 05:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I have done some work on the template. It now has a notice and a warning.
By the way {{ uw-rollbackremoved}} has been nominated for deletion. -- IRP ☎ 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you yourself intend this to be used discreetly, but having the template available ,especially on scripts, is a sure way to have it used wrongly also. And I don;t all think the examples you gave are actually correct uses
Let me encourage you to try doing what we really need here--rewording many of our notices to make them more gentle, and somewhat more concise, so the key part gets clearly communicated without our losing a potential editor. DGG ( talk) 05:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose that warning templates only approved by this wikiproject through consensus be used and that we discourage the use of warning templates constructed by individual users on their own and not discussed here and "adopted" as official. I believe it is potentially harmful for users to change the templates and potentially, I'm sure in good faith, change the language subtly that may perhaps be more offensive or taken the wrong way. Only through consensus here can we be sure templates are being stated with the appropriate harshness/sensitivity. I think creating new ones in sandboxes and user pages and all that is good, but the actual implementation of new ones without first bringing them here is dangerous. I bring this up due to the first comment on this talk page (as the talk page stood on May 3), of the editor who created warning templates and has had good results using them. Perhaps treating new warning templates like drug companies treat new drugs would be a good way to find new ones. Let people create and improvise but then bring them here and let the community decide whether or not they should be used on a "trial basis" and then after an arbitrary time of use that editor comes back here with the results and the community decides whether or not to keep the new template. What does everyone think? Camelbinky ( talk) 22:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
These templates are a tool that editors can chose whether they use or don't use. There is nothing stopping an editor creating their own set of templates so long as they don't fall foul off the usual policies of not biting, personal attack, etc. We created the UW warnings as a standard set of tools, but once released the community or any single editor could modify them as they see fit, though consensus keeps them from splintering off into various colours and wordings etc. Though these pages are titled wikiproject, it doesn't give them an authority over the templates but is just a focal point for those who are/were interested in templated warnings to express their views and makes some changes. To try and install a level of bureaucracy here without any authority to do by the community at large would fail very very quickly. All this project has the remit to do is give it's thoughts as a focal point but ultimately we cannot decide which templates survive and which go and that can only be done by TfD. Khu kri 08:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so if I understand this correctly, and please tell me if anyone disagree, most of the people here who have commented actually WISH there was something similar to what I'm suggesting but think that it wont work because the rest of the community will ignore it or some will get away with ignoring it because of their "standing" in the community. I think that's sad. Come on, if you agree that something needs to be done about these people who make their own templates and go around slapping them on people, stand up, be strong, I think you'll find we are actually in the majority, we wont be outnumbered I promise. Warning templates are something that can be misused or abused so quickly and it is extremely dangerous to have them out there without some sort of oversight. Anomie, I support your "magically created" situtation, lets find others who do and make it happen. I understand your points, and totally agree about a heirarchy has been created (IMO it has been a detriment to Wikipedia) and about how admins talk about "the tools arent a big deal, no one really needs them" (especially when voting against accepting a new admin) but jeez suggest to an admin that he/she is a stuck-up prick with an attitude and should have his admin status removed because they're the rudest wiki-vampire (an editor who violates wp:BITE) in all of wikipedia and they suddenly start talking like being an admin makes them a god on wikipedia and your a knat. But that's off-topic and actually that's only one admin I had a problem with, about 2 years ago, and that admin is still here and still the rudest prick. Hmmm, I should make my own warning template and stick it on them...maybe if a bunch of us started making our own warningt templates and threw them on admins that had attitudes THEN warning templates would some how become standardized and protected! Non-admins of Wikipedia rise up and unite! Ok, I'm seriously drunk, so probably we shouldnt. Camelbinky ( talk) 07:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
This proposal is not feasible, primarily because it is based on a misunderstanding of what warning templates are. When a user commits a "warnable" offense, another user who chooses to warn them is permitted to use whatever language and formatting they wish to, so long as it falls within the various policies that govern speech in all areas of Wikipedia. If you choose to use a template to get your message across, you have merely used that template's language and formatting as a substitute for your own. Using a template instead of your own language does not by any stretch of the imagination imbue your message with any more authority than it would have had otherwise. Furthermore, the fact that you substituted a template and which template you substituted is irrelevant because all substituting the template does is transfer the block of text from the template page to the page you substituted it on, no link or indication that it was a template is left (except for comments in some cases). Therefore talkpage comments that are a result of template substitutions should be subject to no more constrictive rules than comments that do not, because in the end they are still just comments.
Warning templates are primarily a tool of convenience; they allow people to post talkpage warnings in a fraction of the time it would take to type out a personalized warning. That they serve to standardize language is a byproduct of this. The closest thing to authority that the community approved templates have is that a lot of people think that their contents is appropriate language to use when warning a vandal. No one is obligated to use any template in any warning because we can not dictate what people say, should they choose to use one which template they use is governed by nothing more than what they want to say.
What I think you're really objecting to are comments enclosed in fancy boxes with icons. Sticking a message in a box and putting an icon next to it give messages the appearance of authority because various standard warning templates that carry the threat of blocking use this format. There are policies that should serve to prevent people from pretending to have authority when they do not. If people are violating these policies through the use of talkpage messages, whether such messages result from template substitution or not, then they need to be reprimanded. Request that they stop on their talkpage, open an RFC, open an ANI thread (not recommended), whatever your preferred WP:DR method of choice is. If you feel that the beheavior of some users is abusive but there is no specific policy prohibiting their actions, feel free to propose a policy that would.
As for templates in particular: Templates in template space must fulfill some basic requirements. In particular, they must be useful, and they must be used. If one of these requirements is lacking, take the template to WP:TFD. If someone has created a template in template space and is the only one using it, encourage them to userfy it. Templates with abusive messages on them are subject to XFD like any other page. In conclusion, you need to change your focus. If people are misrepresenting their own authority, they need to be corrected. If templates that are useless or not being used exist in template space, they need to be deleted. But you can't force people to restrain what they say in their warnings except via the standard policies that control speech on Wikipedia; if they choose to standardize their warnings in a manner different from the way that you have chosen, then that is their right. After all, anyone can copy and past the fancy box/icon code into any message they want and it would be given the same vestige of pretend authority as a substituted template message would, you are not solving the problem you think you're solving.-- Dycedarg ж 02:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
How can I assume good faith if I slam up a template under a big Warnings (!) heading?
I think it should be called something friendlier and more neutral. Someone who's better at english than I am can probably come up with a better title, but calling it notices would be better at the very least.
—
Apis (
talk)
01:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The other day I nominated a page for speedy deletion under A7: Unremarkable band. The page was deleted quickly. When I checked the page later, the page was still there meaning the author had recreated the page. I looked in the User Warnings for a warning about Recreating speedily deleted articles. There was only the {{subst:uw-repost|Article}} warning for Recreating deleted articles previously deleted at AfD.
I was therefore wondering, I would like to request a warning about Recreating speedily deleted articles? Also could the warnings not be a single-level but multi-level? Therefore if the user continues to recreate a speedily deleted article, they can eventually be reported at WP:AIAV. {{ uw-create}} just doesn't cut it for me. I feel we need warnings that are more direct. Neu tralle 09:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
On Template messages/User talk namespace some user made the remark that the abbreviation Uw is confusing for some (Dutch) users as Uw means Your (in the formal meaning for adults). Please follow the (short) discussion starting here and consider the (general) proposition to use ALL capitals for abbeviations that uses all first letters of the words. As far as I know there aren't many (if any) languages where words use capitals other then the 1st character, unless ALL letters are capitals, but that is not the case in any of the UserWarnings. To prevent double discussions I suggest one should only react there or we should stop the discussion there and move it over to another place (or an existing place if this matter is already discussed elsewhere). Many tks, JanT ( talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
$wgCapitalLinks
set true. Changing things to be "UW-" would just require redirects from every existing "uw-" name anyway, and the latter are likely what people would continue to use.In an attempt to reduce the possibility of {{ uw-ublock}} being perceived as WP:BITEy, I've bolded the sentence "This block is only regarding your username—it is not a judgment of either you personally or your contributions." within that template, so that this stands out better in the large block of text within that template. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
After over a year, and 1600 edits, roughly 95% of which have been anti-vandal(Huggle), IMO we need user warning templates for style. Clearly, I mean unprofessional, informal and unencyclopedic style. There are just so many contributors who edit with little or no thought to the relevance, coherence and tone of their edits. However, I feel that 99% of these editors do so in good faith. Can't really just give them a vandal warning.. Now, I'd be downright happy to warn them, but as far as I can tell, there are no appropriate templates (I'd like to see the 4-level system ideally). There certainly are article templates that deal with style / tone issues, and user warning templates for creating nonsense / joke / incoherent articles, but none for a pattern of (personal opinion) simply awful editing on existing articles. I don't really consider myself competent to make the templates I'd like to have, and I haven't the foggiest clue what anyone else would think of them if I did. Is it even a good idea? It would be so much easier (and possibly less degrading) than hand warning them, and so much more effective than simply reverting these edits. If there aren't any replies to this after a couple days, I'll repost somewhere else. This is really bugging me. My two cents, I guess..
I just made the user notification Template:Uw-imghelp, as I often came across people trying futilely to add an image that was externally or even locally hosted. Maybe integrate it with Twinkle? Here's what it looks like.
Hello. In case you didn't know, you cannot add externally or locally hosted images to Wikipedia pages. You can only add images that have been uploaded to Wikipedia's servers. See
how to upload images, but make sure you have read and understood our
image use policy before uploading any images. Thank you.
Comments and assistance welcome. BlazerKnight ( talk) 00:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a user warning template that would say (in effect):
The tag would use ingredients from {{ uw-unsourced1}} and {{ AFDNote}} so that Twinkle could offer the option of adding it to the creator's user talk page when adding an {{ Unreferenced}} tag to an article. I realize that I can use {{ uw-unsourced1}}, but it doesn't say quite what I want to say to the creator of an article that needs references added to it. That is, I want to say "Please add references" rather than "Don't add unreferenced material". -- Eastmain ( talk) 05:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Team1525 ( talk · contribs) was just blocked for being a self-admitted sock of an indefinitely blocked editor. However in the past 36 hours, he appears to have made 96 edits to various templates under the purview of this project. Most of the edits replaced shortcuts with the full Wikipedia title page, which is generally pretty harmless. Unfortunately some of those shortcuts went to specific sections, while his replacements did not. Examples include this where WP:NOTMYSPACE was improperly replaced with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and this where WP:BLANKING was incorrectly replaced with Wikipedia:User page.
Additionally, the following new templates were all created:
Any help others could provide in wading through this mess would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you people standardize Template:Suicide response and add it to WP:UTM?? We need something to deal with those disturbed enough to threaten suicide. This template seems to be a good start. I was notified about a recent suicide threat being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Threat of Suicide that I accidentally got involved in by blocking a vandal. Jesse Viviano ( talk) 20:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
People keep adding their business listings in the hopes of drawing customers, and we keep telling them not to do it here. {{ uw-bizlist}} suggests they take it to Wikia's Yellowikis instead. Maybe with someplace to actually go, fewer will keep trying to sneak under the gate here.
This can of course be used in conjunction with the Uw-advert* templates; its purpose is slightly different, that's all. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Template:Uw-rikrolblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —
Sizzle Flambé (
☎/
✍)
07:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate any input on a set of user warning templates I've created after an issue that came across #wikipedia-en-help today. I created 3 warnings in a series and redirected the level 4 warning to {{ uw-generic4}}. The following are what I created:
Thanks for any insight! -- Shirik ( talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me firstly say that if this isn't the place for proposing a new user warning template, I apologise, and if someone could direct me to the right place that would be great.
Every now and then when patrolling recent changes I stumble upon edits where someone has done something like this: [10], or an edit adding content along the lines of "Wikipedia is crap, I just proved that anyone can edit it, so you can't trust it." etc. I usually template these edits with the NPOV warning or the generic vandalism warning. However, I always feel like what would really be appropriate is a template that gets across the policy of not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (as in WP:POINT). Does anyone feel like there's room for a set of warnings with this in mind? If so, I might have a go at making such a set. I've never made a template before, but I'd be willing to if someone might volunteer to help. Thanks. -- Lear's Fool ( talk | contribs) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering, if a vandalism edit such as this one occurs, can we skip the first "assume good faith" vandalism template and use the second one instead? Thanks. Sorafune +1 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
A few days ago I made a set of notices for CSD. Basically they're all about the incorrect tags for speedy deletion. They're in my
sandbox at the moment, (Which have been removed, but still there in the history). I would be interested if someone can take a look.
Minima
c (
talk)
09:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Verify if "subst:BASEPAGENAME" remains this way in the following template:
Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved
bot account.
Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:
{{
unblock-un|your new username here}}
on
your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. Unfortunately, the current format will say that a user is still blocked on the talk page even though they have changed their name. That's why this should be updated. mechamind 9 0 00:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I recently noticed that the blatant vandalism warning had disappeared from the Twinkle, and am concerned that a vandal has been tampering with this template. Immunize ( talk) 23:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Why was that? It seemed to a be a useful warning to me.
Perhaps I did not phrase that well. It is not so much that I did not understand why it was deleted as much as it is that I disagree strongly with it's deletion. Immunize ( talk) 23:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I have made a new user talk notice template idea here. Please let me know what you think. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Just made this a couple of minutes ago. Can CSD if redundant. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I've started a thread on a proposed set of warning templates at WP:AN#Template Series uw-idt. Any additional input or comments are welcome. - FASTILY (TALK) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a simple mod to the current final warning, with the image being more clear. If anyone wants to modify it or make it a template, PLEASE do so and post it here, because I'm not very good at coding with temps and converting things. Here's the message, a small mod from twinkles, so it'd be nice if this was included in it in an update:
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Old Al (
talk)
21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Old Al ( talk) 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This:
Many of your recent edits have been obvious vandalism, and most have been reverted. Please do NOT continue your streak. If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
With the signature going in the blank space when you view the source, could be used for users or IP's who have a history of many warnings, but not many blocks (Or none), possibly to warn them that they may be indef blocked. This would possibly go well with non-final warnings. This obviously would not apply to schools, libraries, etc... If anyone has any mods, please do so, and if anyone wants to template it, please do so, soon if you can. Old Al ( Talk) 05:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.91.194.173 all the edits by this user stopped after the message, and I added the second one later to make sure. This is only an idea, but if anyone else has a problems/support, please say so. Old Al ( Talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Kayau Voting IS evil 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure this is the right place, but what's the guidelines on users removing vandalism warnings from their own pages? I gave somebody a uw-v1 and he took it down. Thanks. -- AW ( talk) 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Occasionally I use my own custom warning templates. However, it has become clear that many scripts are not compatible with the various scripts used to combat vandalism. Is there any simple way to make them compatible? -- khfan93 03:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that this WikiProject has met its goal of creating a complete, standardised set of user warning templates, which are now largely accepted and used by the community. Any future refinements or issues can be handled perfectly well at WT:UTM, where most discussion is now occuring anyway. Can we mark this as succesfull or historical?-- Kubigula ( talk) 14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Created Template:Uw-upincat( talk links history). Might need an eye from one of the involved people here. Does one need to ask for standardization somewhere, i.e. to start some vetting & improving process? - DePiep ( talk) 11:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the numbered format of this reply, which I know reads coldly, but it's the more convenient way of referencing your above comments.
I hope perhaps this resolves some of the concerns? We should certainly keep working on it. -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Here I found another good description about which cats are/are not suitable for Userpages. It is: Content cats (no) vs. Project cats (yes). We might use that in the /documentation. - DePiep ( talk) 12:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Closing: after all my misunderstanding, Bsherr thank you for improving this one into standard and TW-grade. - DePiep ( talk) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I've created a template here to advise contributors of Wikipedia:Plagiarism and request compliance. Tried to follow your basic principles, but I would appreciate review. :) If it is well received, I'll add it to the various uw compendia. (Speaking of plagiarism, I have shamelessly stolen the format of the above listing header. :)) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated regarding the user-page-notification icons used when an editor's work is tagged for deletion: Template talk:AfD-notice#Request for Comment.
The section above the RfC contains the discussion that preceded the RfC. Herostratus ( talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm a bis slow today, but I just wanted to put a second warning to this IP address (I know a bit pointless, anyway). I'm not an administrator and don't post warnings everyday. I just thought that I read something about a second and third tier of warnings for vandalism here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:205.122.3.16 but after 20 minutes search I'm giving up because I just cannot understand which template should I use. I think would make things easier to have a table with examples as there is for some other templates. Just an idea.-- Dia^ ( talk) 19:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been working on a draft in my sandbox, of revised pages for this project, with the aim of making it easier to navigate. The draft can be found at User:Pol430/Sandbox/WikiProject user warnings. When this project was founded it sought to create a standardized set of uw- templates, this has been largely achieved. I feel the focus of the project should now move towards maintaining that uw- template set. Additionally I would like to see the project work on a design guideline or policy to ensure any new templates maintain the standardization of the current series. In order to keep things simple I will bullet point the proposed changes.
I propose that:
I have posted a pointer to this discussion at WT:UTM. Please discuss... Pol430 talk to me 00:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I just added a level 3 warning to an IP's talk page, because they had two previous warnings about two weeks ago. Is there a preferred time limit to escalating warnings? Like, should I have just repeated a level 2 warning, or started over at level 1? I haven't been able to find anything in the documentation that makes this clear. Thanks. — Torchiest talk edits 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I see on the project page that we still suggest archiving old warnings "to the page history". However, since the {{ old IP warnings top}} and {{ old IP warnings bottom}} templates were developed and added to WP:UTM, do we want to stick with that? Should we choose one or the other or leave both options open? — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 05:37, 6 March 2011 (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 |
The issuing of any vandalism warnings to shared IP addresses appears to be an utter waste of time, and make the person doing the warning look foolish. Such warnings appear to be unenforceable.
The shared IP address User talk:138.23.89.187 is registered to University of California, Riverside. The shared IP address User_talk:204.69.4.82 is registered to Riverside Community College District. Both Riverside California addresses have repeatedly vandalized Garrison Keillor, Lake Wobegon, A Prairie Home Companion, and A Prairie Home Companion (film).
After reverting the vandalism and posting unheeded escalating warnings, I requested IAV. That request was rejected. After follow-up discussion at User_talk:King_of_Hearts#vand_from_a_school, I have learned never again to waste my time issuing vandalism warnings to shared IP addresses. And because such warnings are unenforceable, I have also retracted some of my so-called "final warnings" from User_talk:204.69.4.82#March_2008. I feel utterly stupid issuing a "final warning" that can be repeatedly violated with impunity.
I'll continue reverting vandalism, and continue issuing vandalism warnings to non-shared IP addresses. Just not to shared IP addresses. I'm through seeing several of my own so-called "final warnings" go unenforced despite my best efforts. -- Art Smart ( talk) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In the past couple of days I have been forced to decline several block requests on WP:AIV because the reporting editor issued a bunch a warnings simultaneously. That is, they gave escalating levels of warnings for each case of vandalism reverted, regardless of the fact that the IP address stopped editing hours before.
Here is an example situation:
While it is possible that I missed something, in reviewing WP:UTM I do not see any explicit statement that escalated levels of warning should only be used if the vandal ignores a previous warning and persists in vandalizing after receiving that warning message. Does anyone have an idea for ways to cleverly phrase this? Everything I think up sounds like I am pandering to the lowest common denominator. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest adding the following text to the templates {{ uw-uncen1}} and {{ uw-uncen2}}:
"If you personally find content objectionable, Wikipedia can be personalised to adhere to your cultural norms. Details are explained here."
or
"Wikipedia can be personalised to ahere to your cultural norms."
or
"You may have removed a picture because it violates your cultural norms. Wikipedia does not endorse unilateral enforcement of cultural norms. It can, however be personalised to your needs."
I feel that many users are geniunely concerned about their children seeing certain articles, and that most a not aware of the above option, which is why they resort to deleting info. I am afraid that such users will stop using wikipedia altogether if they are fobbed off with a "zero censorship" warning. Informing them about the self-censorship option will make them feel more in control, and they will be more likely to stay.
Cambrasa (
talk)
13:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are four templates and the results they give:
{{subst:vandal1}}
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
- - - - - -
{{subst:vandal2}}
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
- - - - - -
{{subst:vandal3}}
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, you will be
blocked from editing.
- - - - - -
{{subst:vandal4}}
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing.
- - - - - -
Note that number 4 doesn't work. It works if "vandal4" is changed to "uw-vandal4".
{{subst:uw-vandal4}}
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, you will be
blocked from editing.
- - - - - -
Is there any good reason why 4 is different? (other than it was coded differently.)
I'm asking this because it would be a bit simpler if they were uniform. Wanderer57 ( talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I used {{welcome}} on a bunch of new editor talk pages. I didn't use {{subst:W-basic}}. (Sorry.) What should I do? Should I go back over my edits and change them? Or should I leave it to a bot? Thanks. and I checked the FAQ Dan Beale-Cocks 10:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the nice things about Wikia are the specialized wikis, many of which allow content that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, such as game guides or articles on minor fictional characters. I have created a new template ({{ nn-wikia}}) for telling users that the content they added is more appropriate for Wikia.
What do you guys think? -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we need unique warnings for those who make politically-motivated edits? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey people, yesterday i brought up an issue at the LGBT wikiproject. Im not a member myself but i thought this was quite important. I noticed that wikipedia has a template aimed at fighting racist edits yet there is no such template for edits against sexual orientation. As both are just as bad as one another and since discrimination does (unfortunately) occure on wikipedia we need a template that is used in the same manner as the racism template. The consensus was that a template is needed and there seems to be an agreement that no harm can come of it. I would like you to read the following link and help impliment a new template that will hopefully be taken as seriously as the racism template. This is the link. Cheers. -- Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to copy this discussion to WT:UTM, as that is the main warning template discussion page. This Wikiproject page is not very active anymore as its work is pretty much done.-- Kubigula ( talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OK , no problem. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between the template {{ uw-v4}} and {{ uw-bv}}? They both seem similar since both of them could function as final warnings. Could these two templates be merged together? I asked something similar to this elsewhere but nobody could come up with an answer. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 06:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 03:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I started a thread here describing what I think might be a good modification for level 4 warnings, but thus far the proposal has not received any attention. So I figured I's mention it here. Please comment over there if so inclined. Yilloslime (t) 00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Since a lot of people arent following the warning layout, I made a layout template @ uw-layout. Now we can encourage ppl to use the layout. Stupid2 ( talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The second sentence Any further vandalism will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. seems a bit awkward and grammatically incorrect, especially the part your being blocked (or you being blocked if it is a typo). This sentence should be reworded to something like Any further vandalism will result in a block from editing Wikipedia or Any further vandalism will result in a revocation of editing privileges. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we should still try to use "vandalism" in uw-v4 now that the template uses the word "vandalize" again? I'm ok with the way it is right now, but I think some editors might want the results of the discussion incorporated into uw-v4. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 05:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to determine if consensus exists to TFD some uw templates. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:UTM#Requests for Consensus. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
is anybody still using those templates? Agathoclea ( talk) 11:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
With the rather large number of rollbackers and huggle users that are reverting and dolling out warnings, I'm starting to worry about all the old stale warnings being left on IP talk pages. It's more than likely they are driving away some potential editors/readers, but it'd be impossible to judge how many "some" is. Simple scenario, anon goes to the Wiki to read up on some subject, sees they got a message, reads it and the threatened blocking for something they didn't do 3 months ago. After that they usually either then go to the warner and/or leave the project. No matter how well the editor explains to him, they're prolly gonna end up with a sour taste of the Wiki. It'd probably be too impractical to remove all the old warnings now, but what about the possibility of amending the current warnings to say something along the lines of "after X months this warning can be considered invalid/stale" or whatever warning would be appropriate. This little bit wouldn't be applicable for recurring vandals, just those that get 1/2 message and leave. Anyone else's thoughts? -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is ongoing on a rewrite of {{ uw-canvass}} at Template talk:Uw-canvass#Uw-canvass. tgies ( talk) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Please create a template to warn users about excessive internal links-- Ainlina-- Speak to me-- Ask a question-- Praise and criticism 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across an edit that readded an image that had been removed (as there was no fair-use rationale for its inclusion in that article). I looked at WP:WARN to warn the user but I found no template relevant to the issue (the only ones I could find relate to uploading images). I sought help at WP:Media_copyright_questions but they didn't know of a template either. Could one possibly be created by someone familiar in the user-warning-template field? Thanks ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 21:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Wikipedia Arbitration enforcement templates, I see that level 1 warnings like {{ uw-balkans}} are listed there but they are not listed on Category:Standardised user warning templates, but their equivalent leve 2 warning like {{ uw-balkans2}} are the other way around.
Should I go and list all of them on both categories? Or was this done on purpose? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose the creation of {{Uw-notability}}
and {{Uw-unreferenced}}
tags that could be added to a user talk page when an editor tags an article with {{Notability}}
or {{Unreferenced}}
. The point of these user warnings would be to get the user to do something (add references or demonstrate notability) rather than to stop doing something, which is the case with most user warning messages. If I see a problem article which is potentially notable but doesn't really demonstrate it, I would much rather tag it for notability and ask the article's creator to improve it than tag it for speedy deletion and warn the creator that the article might be deleted. {{Uw-notability}}
and {{Uw-unreferenced}}
would be less biting than a speedy deletion warning and might get a better response from the creators of weak articles. --
Eastmain (
talk)
04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
uw-
plus the name of the tag. --
Eastmain (
talk)
16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)How about warnings for uploading images in a pattern of long-term abuse (obviously, we don't look to bite people, but I think we make licensing in-your-face clear when uploading as it is)? Like addition of files for "Wikipedia only" repeatedly and the like. Ian¹³ /t 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added a link to that guide to {{ Uw-block1}}, as has already been done in {{ unblock}}, in MediaWiki:Blockedtext and elsewhere. Are there any objections? If not, I'll make the same addition to the other uw-block templates. Sandstein 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Your input is needed here. Thanks, ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 22:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This page says Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings" but that does not appear to be current practice. What I am seeing (and doing) is putting the warnings in a month and year section. Should I change? Eeekster ( talk) 03:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at WP:VPR#Non-english warning. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 14:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a version of the schoolblock made that could be used in place of it and added to TW? For more details, see here. Regards, لenna vecia 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
In the past, if I've seen an edit reverted by another editor, but that editor failed to add a warning template to the IP's talk page after a substantial period of time, I went ahead and added the warning template myself. Is this okay?
More specifically, if an IP edits unconstructively, but then he reverts his own edit, is it kosher to leave a warning template ({{ uw-test1}} comes to mind) on their talk page? -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
For historical reasons, this project has the shortcut WP:UW, while the actual template overview, which should have much more traffic, has only more complicated shortcuts, such as WP:UWT. Are there any objections against using WP:UW for the overview? — Sebastian 02:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to reduce the mention of "vandal" for three reasons:
For these reasons, I would like to remove the mention of "vandal" from all templates that are not explicitly for vandals. — Sebastian 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I still would prefer this change for the reasons I gave. For me the question is not so much if one can see these things as vandalism (which I arguably did myself, in my example above, by using rollback), but rather if this added text really helps Wikipedia and outweighs the loss of applicability (#2 above). But I am grateful for and respect your continued commitment to this project and won't pursue this any further for now. Please notify me if there are any changes relevant for this issue. — Sebastian 05:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is a list of templates using the word "vandal", minus those like {{ uw-aiv}}:
(Those below are likely considered "explicitly for vandals")
This should make it easier to discuss exactly which templates are proposed to be changed. Anomie ⚔ 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed a trend of users creating multiple accounts, especially new users, I and wanted to make a template to ask them what they are up to. The template is Template:uw-multiple-accts. Looking for some feedback on the template, if people like it, I'll try to get aza to add it to twinkle under uw-username. -- Terrillja talk 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that {{Lang1}} comes across very harsh
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English.
for someone who doesn't realize they're making a English variety change. For example in a recent change a brand new user changed "civilisation" to "civilization" but left all the other British English spellings (e.g. honour) intact. So it seems they were just fixing what they saw as a error. Slapping a Respect other people's warning on a newbie who's decided to WP:BOLD is not encouraging. Gerardw ( talk) 12:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
So I'm wondering how I got downgraded to "interested" after all the work I put in? When did this happen, and why? KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that there really is not a good warning for someone using either their OWN user page or OWN talk page in order to attack someone. The closest thing I found is {{ subst:uw-defam1}}, but that doesn't seem right. {{ subst:uw-attack}} is obviously not appropriate because it only refers to other editors. I think we should have one that says something to the affect of "Please do not use your userspace to attack others". Any ideas? Valley2 city‽ 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I was wondering if there was a way that I could include diffs of what a user did that was disruptive or uncivil when using these templates. For example, if someone vandalizes a page, how do I include the diff that shows the vandalism in the warning? Do I need Twinkle or Huggle to do this?-- Disturbed Nerd 999 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the CVU,I would like to make a proposal that this project be made as an independand child project with the CVU as its parent. I believe that user warnings are an important part of countervandalism on wikipedia and therefore the CVU should be the parent project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 February 2009
-- Ipatrol ( talk) 02:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be best listed as a related project, if anything. CVU isn't the general antivandalism club on Wikipedia; it's just an organization dedicated to countering it. UW is a relatively static standardization-related project, not a tool on the paramilitary front of eradicating the ills of vandalism from Wikipedia (or whatever CVU does nowadays). If you'd like to plan a change to a 4im template, this is definitely the place; otherwise, discussing its usage is great for WT:UTM or wherever you want. Gracenotes T § 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I and the other editors at the CVU are working on recasting the CVU, in addition to its traditional role, as a projectspace wikiproject to work through pages related to antivandalism. This process began with a discussion at
WT:CVU and the creation of {{
CVU}}. So that is why I saked for the project parenting, so we may begin that process.--
Ipatrol (
talk)
00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I created {{ uw-legitrevert}} in my userspace because I'm not sure if this is correct, but I believe that it is a breach of the policies and guidelines to revert legitimate edits without explanation. This is why an administrator can revoke rollback permissions for users who abuse the rollback feature, but I believe it is almost as bad to abuse the undo feature because it may deter newcomers who are wondering why their legitimate edits are being reverted, which is why abusing a revert feature of any kind is very disruptive. Comments? -- IRP ☎ 19:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a major flaw with this template. It threatens an editor who may be impolite but not necessarily breaking any policy with an almost immediate block.
Even if we agree we want to make such a threat needs to be supported; hence the template should direct to the relevant policy actually making such an edit summary obligatory. Now it points to general policies; a section where it states not making edit summary is NOT vandalism; and a section about explaining reverts. None of these policies come close to stating that this is a blocking offense. Maing threats you cannot uphold is not a good idea (I would even say that such practice is very very bad practice)
Secondly, while only the most blatant vandalisms get an only warning template, this much much milder offense (if it is a violation of a rule at all) would get a single warning approach. That seems way over the top.
My suggestion, this template shoud be much, much, much more modest in its tone.
Arnoutf (
talk)
21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
For what could be a simple error, which could be resolved with a personal message this template is a nuclear approach "This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits" is equally presumptuous and potentially as bad faith as the initial revert. This template is heavy handed, and certainly isn't a first step in a misunderstanding over what could be a poor intentioned rollback/revert. Only after dialogue had failed or it had been repeated would one reach for this. No from me. Khu kri 23:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The ONLY WARNING language is far too harsh. Assume good faith, and start with a friendly warning. 1 revert can't be a pattern of bad behavior, and we shouldn't treat it as such. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 05:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I have done some work on the template. It now has a notice and a warning.
By the way {{ uw-rollbackremoved}} has been nominated for deletion. -- IRP ☎ 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you yourself intend this to be used discreetly, but having the template available ,especially on scripts, is a sure way to have it used wrongly also. And I don;t all think the examples you gave are actually correct uses
Let me encourage you to try doing what we really need here--rewording many of our notices to make them more gentle, and somewhat more concise, so the key part gets clearly communicated without our losing a potential editor. DGG ( talk) 05:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose that warning templates only approved by this wikiproject through consensus be used and that we discourage the use of warning templates constructed by individual users on their own and not discussed here and "adopted" as official. I believe it is potentially harmful for users to change the templates and potentially, I'm sure in good faith, change the language subtly that may perhaps be more offensive or taken the wrong way. Only through consensus here can we be sure templates are being stated with the appropriate harshness/sensitivity. I think creating new ones in sandboxes and user pages and all that is good, but the actual implementation of new ones without first bringing them here is dangerous. I bring this up due to the first comment on this talk page (as the talk page stood on May 3), of the editor who created warning templates and has had good results using them. Perhaps treating new warning templates like drug companies treat new drugs would be a good way to find new ones. Let people create and improvise but then bring them here and let the community decide whether or not they should be used on a "trial basis" and then after an arbitrary time of use that editor comes back here with the results and the community decides whether or not to keep the new template. What does everyone think? Camelbinky ( talk) 22:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
These templates are a tool that editors can chose whether they use or don't use. There is nothing stopping an editor creating their own set of templates so long as they don't fall foul off the usual policies of not biting, personal attack, etc. We created the UW warnings as a standard set of tools, but once released the community or any single editor could modify them as they see fit, though consensus keeps them from splintering off into various colours and wordings etc. Though these pages are titled wikiproject, it doesn't give them an authority over the templates but is just a focal point for those who are/were interested in templated warnings to express their views and makes some changes. To try and install a level of bureaucracy here without any authority to do by the community at large would fail very very quickly. All this project has the remit to do is give it's thoughts as a focal point but ultimately we cannot decide which templates survive and which go and that can only be done by TfD. Khu kri 08:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so if I understand this correctly, and please tell me if anyone disagree, most of the people here who have commented actually WISH there was something similar to what I'm suggesting but think that it wont work because the rest of the community will ignore it or some will get away with ignoring it because of their "standing" in the community. I think that's sad. Come on, if you agree that something needs to be done about these people who make their own templates and go around slapping them on people, stand up, be strong, I think you'll find we are actually in the majority, we wont be outnumbered I promise. Warning templates are something that can be misused or abused so quickly and it is extremely dangerous to have them out there without some sort of oversight. Anomie, I support your "magically created" situtation, lets find others who do and make it happen. I understand your points, and totally agree about a heirarchy has been created (IMO it has been a detriment to Wikipedia) and about how admins talk about "the tools arent a big deal, no one really needs them" (especially when voting against accepting a new admin) but jeez suggest to an admin that he/she is a stuck-up prick with an attitude and should have his admin status removed because they're the rudest wiki-vampire (an editor who violates wp:BITE) in all of wikipedia and they suddenly start talking like being an admin makes them a god on wikipedia and your a knat. But that's off-topic and actually that's only one admin I had a problem with, about 2 years ago, and that admin is still here and still the rudest prick. Hmmm, I should make my own warning template and stick it on them...maybe if a bunch of us started making our own warningt templates and threw them on admins that had attitudes THEN warning templates would some how become standardized and protected! Non-admins of Wikipedia rise up and unite! Ok, I'm seriously drunk, so probably we shouldnt. Camelbinky ( talk) 07:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
This proposal is not feasible, primarily because it is based on a misunderstanding of what warning templates are. When a user commits a "warnable" offense, another user who chooses to warn them is permitted to use whatever language and formatting they wish to, so long as it falls within the various policies that govern speech in all areas of Wikipedia. If you choose to use a template to get your message across, you have merely used that template's language and formatting as a substitute for your own. Using a template instead of your own language does not by any stretch of the imagination imbue your message with any more authority than it would have had otherwise. Furthermore, the fact that you substituted a template and which template you substituted is irrelevant because all substituting the template does is transfer the block of text from the template page to the page you substituted it on, no link or indication that it was a template is left (except for comments in some cases). Therefore talkpage comments that are a result of template substitutions should be subject to no more constrictive rules than comments that do not, because in the end they are still just comments.
Warning templates are primarily a tool of convenience; they allow people to post talkpage warnings in a fraction of the time it would take to type out a personalized warning. That they serve to standardize language is a byproduct of this. The closest thing to authority that the community approved templates have is that a lot of people think that their contents is appropriate language to use when warning a vandal. No one is obligated to use any template in any warning because we can not dictate what people say, should they choose to use one which template they use is governed by nothing more than what they want to say.
What I think you're really objecting to are comments enclosed in fancy boxes with icons. Sticking a message in a box and putting an icon next to it give messages the appearance of authority because various standard warning templates that carry the threat of blocking use this format. There are policies that should serve to prevent people from pretending to have authority when they do not. If people are violating these policies through the use of talkpage messages, whether such messages result from template substitution or not, then they need to be reprimanded. Request that they stop on their talkpage, open an RFC, open an ANI thread (not recommended), whatever your preferred WP:DR method of choice is. If you feel that the beheavior of some users is abusive but there is no specific policy prohibiting their actions, feel free to propose a policy that would.
As for templates in particular: Templates in template space must fulfill some basic requirements. In particular, they must be useful, and they must be used. If one of these requirements is lacking, take the template to WP:TFD. If someone has created a template in template space and is the only one using it, encourage them to userfy it. Templates with abusive messages on them are subject to XFD like any other page. In conclusion, you need to change your focus. If people are misrepresenting their own authority, they need to be corrected. If templates that are useless or not being used exist in template space, they need to be deleted. But you can't force people to restrain what they say in their warnings except via the standard policies that control speech on Wikipedia; if they choose to standardize their warnings in a manner different from the way that you have chosen, then that is their right. After all, anyone can copy and past the fancy box/icon code into any message they want and it would be given the same vestige of pretend authority as a substituted template message would, you are not solving the problem you think you're solving.-- Dycedarg ж 02:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
How can I assume good faith if I slam up a template under a big Warnings (!) heading?
I think it should be called something friendlier and more neutral. Someone who's better at english than I am can probably come up with a better title, but calling it notices would be better at the very least.
—
Apis (
talk)
01:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The other day I nominated a page for speedy deletion under A7: Unremarkable band. The page was deleted quickly. When I checked the page later, the page was still there meaning the author had recreated the page. I looked in the User Warnings for a warning about Recreating speedily deleted articles. There was only the {{subst:uw-repost|Article}} warning for Recreating deleted articles previously deleted at AfD.
I was therefore wondering, I would like to request a warning about Recreating speedily deleted articles? Also could the warnings not be a single-level but multi-level? Therefore if the user continues to recreate a speedily deleted article, they can eventually be reported at WP:AIAV. {{ uw-create}} just doesn't cut it for me. I feel we need warnings that are more direct. Neu tralle 09:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
On Template messages/User talk namespace some user made the remark that the abbreviation Uw is confusing for some (Dutch) users as Uw means Your (in the formal meaning for adults). Please follow the (short) discussion starting here and consider the (general) proposition to use ALL capitals for abbeviations that uses all first letters of the words. As far as I know there aren't many (if any) languages where words use capitals other then the 1st character, unless ALL letters are capitals, but that is not the case in any of the UserWarnings. To prevent double discussions I suggest one should only react there or we should stop the discussion there and move it over to another place (or an existing place if this matter is already discussed elsewhere). Many tks, JanT ( talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
$wgCapitalLinks
set true. Changing things to be "UW-" would just require redirects from every existing "uw-" name anyway, and the latter are likely what people would continue to use.In an attempt to reduce the possibility of {{ uw-ublock}} being perceived as WP:BITEy, I've bolded the sentence "This block is only regarding your username—it is not a judgment of either you personally or your contributions." within that template, so that this stands out better in the large block of text within that template. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
After over a year, and 1600 edits, roughly 95% of which have been anti-vandal(Huggle), IMO we need user warning templates for style. Clearly, I mean unprofessional, informal and unencyclopedic style. There are just so many contributors who edit with little or no thought to the relevance, coherence and tone of their edits. However, I feel that 99% of these editors do so in good faith. Can't really just give them a vandal warning.. Now, I'd be downright happy to warn them, but as far as I can tell, there are no appropriate templates (I'd like to see the 4-level system ideally). There certainly are article templates that deal with style / tone issues, and user warning templates for creating nonsense / joke / incoherent articles, but none for a pattern of (personal opinion) simply awful editing on existing articles. I don't really consider myself competent to make the templates I'd like to have, and I haven't the foggiest clue what anyone else would think of them if I did. Is it even a good idea? It would be so much easier (and possibly less degrading) than hand warning them, and so much more effective than simply reverting these edits. If there aren't any replies to this after a couple days, I'll repost somewhere else. This is really bugging me. My two cents, I guess..
I just made the user notification Template:Uw-imghelp, as I often came across people trying futilely to add an image that was externally or even locally hosted. Maybe integrate it with Twinkle? Here's what it looks like.
Hello. In case you didn't know, you cannot add externally or locally hosted images to Wikipedia pages. You can only add images that have been uploaded to Wikipedia's servers. See
how to upload images, but make sure you have read and understood our
image use policy before uploading any images. Thank you.
Comments and assistance welcome. BlazerKnight ( talk) 00:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a user warning template that would say (in effect):
The tag would use ingredients from {{ uw-unsourced1}} and {{ AFDNote}} so that Twinkle could offer the option of adding it to the creator's user talk page when adding an {{ Unreferenced}} tag to an article. I realize that I can use {{ uw-unsourced1}}, but it doesn't say quite what I want to say to the creator of an article that needs references added to it. That is, I want to say "Please add references" rather than "Don't add unreferenced material". -- Eastmain ( talk) 05:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Team1525 ( talk · contribs) was just blocked for being a self-admitted sock of an indefinitely blocked editor. However in the past 36 hours, he appears to have made 96 edits to various templates under the purview of this project. Most of the edits replaced shortcuts with the full Wikipedia title page, which is generally pretty harmless. Unfortunately some of those shortcuts went to specific sections, while his replacements did not. Examples include this where WP:NOTMYSPACE was improperly replaced with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and this where WP:BLANKING was incorrectly replaced with Wikipedia:User page.
Additionally, the following new templates were all created:
Any help others could provide in wading through this mess would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, — Kralizec! ( talk) 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you people standardize Template:Suicide response and add it to WP:UTM?? We need something to deal with those disturbed enough to threaten suicide. This template seems to be a good start. I was notified about a recent suicide threat being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Threat of Suicide that I accidentally got involved in by blocking a vandal. Jesse Viviano ( talk) 20:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
People keep adding their business listings in the hopes of drawing customers, and we keep telling them not to do it here. {{ uw-bizlist}} suggests they take it to Wikia's Yellowikis instead. Maybe with someplace to actually go, fewer will keep trying to sneak under the gate here.
This can of course be used in conjunction with the Uw-advert* templates; its purpose is slightly different, that's all. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Template:Uw-rikrolblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —
Sizzle Flambé (
☎/
✍)
07:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate any input on a set of user warning templates I've created after an issue that came across #wikipedia-en-help today. I created 3 warnings in a series and redirected the level 4 warning to {{ uw-generic4}}. The following are what I created:
Thanks for any insight! -- Shirik ( talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me firstly say that if this isn't the place for proposing a new user warning template, I apologise, and if someone could direct me to the right place that would be great.
Every now and then when patrolling recent changes I stumble upon edits where someone has done something like this: [10], or an edit adding content along the lines of "Wikipedia is crap, I just proved that anyone can edit it, so you can't trust it." etc. I usually template these edits with the NPOV warning or the generic vandalism warning. However, I always feel like what would really be appropriate is a template that gets across the policy of not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (as in WP:POINT). Does anyone feel like there's room for a set of warnings with this in mind? If so, I might have a go at making such a set. I've never made a template before, but I'd be willing to if someone might volunteer to help. Thanks. -- Lear's Fool ( talk | contribs) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering, if a vandalism edit such as this one occurs, can we skip the first "assume good faith" vandalism template and use the second one instead? Thanks. Sorafune +1 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
A few days ago I made a set of notices for CSD. Basically they're all about the incorrect tags for speedy deletion. They're in my
sandbox at the moment, (Which have been removed, but still there in the history). I would be interested if someone can take a look.
Minima
c (
talk)
09:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Verify if "subst:BASEPAGENAME" remains this way in the following template:
Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved
bot account.
Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:
{{
unblock-un|your new username here}}
on
your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. Unfortunately, the current format will say that a user is still blocked on the talk page even though they have changed their name. That's why this should be updated. mechamind 9 0 00:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I recently noticed that the blatant vandalism warning had disappeared from the Twinkle, and am concerned that a vandal has been tampering with this template. Immunize ( talk) 23:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Why was that? It seemed to a be a useful warning to me.
Perhaps I did not phrase that well. It is not so much that I did not understand why it was deleted as much as it is that I disagree strongly with it's deletion. Immunize ( talk) 23:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I have made a new user talk notice template idea here. Please let me know what you think. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Just made this a couple of minutes ago. Can CSD if redundant. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I've started a thread on a proposed set of warning templates at WP:AN#Template Series uw-idt. Any additional input or comments are welcome. - FASTILY (TALK) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a simple mod to the current final warning, with the image being more clear. If anyone wants to modify it or make it a template, PLEASE do so and post it here, because I'm not very good at coding with temps and converting things. Here's the message, a small mod from twinkles, so it'd be nice if this was included in it in an update:
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Old Al (
talk)
21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Old Al ( talk) 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This:
Many of your recent edits have been obvious vandalism, and most have been reverted. Please do NOT continue your streak. If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
With the signature going in the blank space when you view the source, could be used for users or IP's who have a history of many warnings, but not many blocks (Or none), possibly to warn them that they may be indef blocked. This would possibly go well with non-final warnings. This obviously would not apply to schools, libraries, etc... If anyone has any mods, please do so, and if anyone wants to template it, please do so, soon if you can. Old Al ( Talk) 05:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.91.194.173 all the edits by this user stopped after the message, and I added the second one later to make sure. This is only an idea, but if anyone else has a problems/support, please say so. Old Al ( Talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Kayau Voting IS evil 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure this is the right place, but what's the guidelines on users removing vandalism warnings from their own pages? I gave somebody a uw-v1 and he took it down. Thanks. -- AW ( talk) 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Occasionally I use my own custom warning templates. However, it has become clear that many scripts are not compatible with the various scripts used to combat vandalism. Is there any simple way to make them compatible? -- khfan93 03:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that this WikiProject has met its goal of creating a complete, standardised set of user warning templates, which are now largely accepted and used by the community. Any future refinements or issues can be handled perfectly well at WT:UTM, where most discussion is now occuring anyway. Can we mark this as succesfull or historical?-- Kubigula ( talk) 14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Created Template:Uw-upincat( talk links history). Might need an eye from one of the involved people here. Does one need to ask for standardization somewhere, i.e. to start some vetting & improving process? - DePiep ( talk) 11:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the numbered format of this reply, which I know reads coldly, but it's the more convenient way of referencing your above comments.
I hope perhaps this resolves some of the concerns? We should certainly keep working on it. -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Here I found another good description about which cats are/are not suitable for Userpages. It is: Content cats (no) vs. Project cats (yes). We might use that in the /documentation. - DePiep ( talk) 12:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Closing: after all my misunderstanding, Bsherr thank you for improving this one into standard and TW-grade. - DePiep ( talk) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I've created a template here to advise contributors of Wikipedia:Plagiarism and request compliance. Tried to follow your basic principles, but I would appreciate review. :) If it is well received, I'll add it to the various uw compendia. (Speaking of plagiarism, I have shamelessly stolen the format of the above listing header. :)) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated regarding the user-page-notification icons used when an editor's work is tagged for deletion: Template talk:AfD-notice#Request for Comment.
The section above the RfC contains the discussion that preceded the RfC. Herostratus ( talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm a bis slow today, but I just wanted to put a second warning to this IP address (I know a bit pointless, anyway). I'm not an administrator and don't post warnings everyday. I just thought that I read something about a second and third tier of warnings for vandalism here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:205.122.3.16 but after 20 minutes search I'm giving up because I just cannot understand which template should I use. I think would make things easier to have a table with examples as there is for some other templates. Just an idea.-- Dia^ ( talk) 19:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been working on a draft in my sandbox, of revised pages for this project, with the aim of making it easier to navigate. The draft can be found at User:Pol430/Sandbox/WikiProject user warnings. When this project was founded it sought to create a standardized set of uw- templates, this has been largely achieved. I feel the focus of the project should now move towards maintaining that uw- template set. Additionally I would like to see the project work on a design guideline or policy to ensure any new templates maintain the standardization of the current series. In order to keep things simple I will bullet point the proposed changes.
I propose that:
I have posted a pointer to this discussion at WT:UTM. Please discuss... Pol430 talk to me 00:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I just added a level 3 warning to an IP's talk page, because they had two previous warnings about two weeks ago. Is there a preferred time limit to escalating warnings? Like, should I have just repeated a level 2 warning, or started over at level 1? I haven't been able to find anything in the documentation that makes this clear. Thanks. — Torchiest talk edits 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I see on the project page that we still suggest archiving old warnings "to the page history". However, since the {{ old IP warnings top}} and {{ old IP warnings bottom}} templates were developed and added to WP:UTM, do we want to stick with that? Should we choose one or the other or leave both options open? — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 05:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)