This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2006 ( index). 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. |
I discovered the existence of this category of warnings in a template deletion vote, and realized that I object to them on principle. These messages are apparently designed to be placed on user talk pages—which to my mind is somewhat the equivalent of email—a place where one person is writing another person. It's my sense that automating these messages is going to lead to a mechanistic and alienating experience for those who receive them.
The cases being specifically discussed in TFD were related to regal styles, a la Template:Styles3. The scenario I found in my head was: "An enthusiast of British royalty makes several well-intentioned edits to an article, one of which was to add the honorific styles". I think the existence of a boilerplate response encourages a dehumanizing attitude in dealing with such a person which might overlook the positive changes he has made. It would likely make those posting the warning to not feel the need to browse the person's user page in order to preface their remarks with a friendly and contextually-appropriate greeting.
Right now wiki is a very uniform medium, and there is no question that getting more structure and standardization to information is good. Yet I really think the user-to-user communication is a different endeavor from the rest of the encyclopedia, and different rules should apply. We have the power to link and reference, which is an excellent tool that can be employed in giving someone a useful heads-up to policy. But I'm concerned that in the sensitive domain of "warning" people that a wall-of-templates isn't healthy. It's sort of like "talk to the hand" (metaphorically, if not literally using the graphic). Metaeducation 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I had been following this project for some time as it is on my watchlist. Today, I had to create a new template, namely, Template:Test0-n as I increasingly see the need for it on my RC patrol. As my particpation is limited in this project, I request you to review the template, standardise it and its talk page. TIA, -- Gurubrahma 14:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
So currently there is {{ no source}} and {{ no license}} and I found {{ Image no source last warning}}}} which realy doesnt do much, there needs to be one for repeat violators of no source/license images... -- Admrb♉ltz ( T | C) 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the proto-template {{ s/wnote}}: This template is a bad idea. Messages left on user talk pages should be messages to that user (or from him/her). This template is a reminder to other editors, which is likely to be confusing to the owner of the talk page who may think (legitimately) that it is a message for him/her. Also, this template sends the wrong message, contrary to the ideals of WP:BITE and Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. This template sends the message that "We know you are a vandal, and will never be anything but a vandal, so we've added this permanent control panel to your talk page to make it easier to punish you." This will not encourage people to give up vandalism. Comments appreciated. TfD forthcoming otherwise.-- Srleffler 00:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find this project on the Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects.... Did I miss it somewhere? -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any limitation on who can use these, and which ones they can use? [...] Are there no safeguards against abuse of these warnings? Or can anybody use them to harrass anybody?
Davidkevin 07:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
How about non warnings like template:test1-n sectioned under the name of the article used as example, the use of non -n templates depreciated, the adding of numbered lists prefix # to warning and blocked templates and put under a single user talk page section "Warnings"?:
===George W. Bush===
Thanks for experimenting with the page George W. Bush on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-20 t06:42z
Warnings.
- Please refrain from adding nonsense, as you did to George W. Bush, to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-21 t06:42z
- Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to George W. Bush, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-22 t06:42z
- Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-23 t06:42z
- This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to George W. Bush, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-24 t06:42z
5.
You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalizing the George W. Bush article. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to do so after the block expires. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-25 t06:42z6.
You have been blocked from editing for 10 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for blanking the George W. Bush article. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to do so after the block expires. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-27 t06:42z7.
You have been blocked from editing for 100 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalizing the George W. Bush article. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to do so after the block expires. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-27 t06:42z
-- Jeandré, 2006-02-27 t06:42z
The "non-n" templates are still sometimes useful. If a user has vandalized multiple pages I will typically revert each and leave a single "non-n" warning. The user knows what he has done, and doesn't need a separate warning for each.-- Srleffler 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I was just surfing about and just found your excellent little wikiproject. I've long thought that we need to standardize the templates and figure out a better way to keep track of vandals and their prior histories. The latter can be a bit hard to do in the heat of RC patrol, and I daresay your {{ S/wnote}} makes this a little easier (since it has all those links within easy reach) and reminds other patrollers to subst. I have made one change to the template which I hope was not being entirely too bold :). I changed the link from kate's wonderful tool to interiot's even more wonderful tool: interiot's provides easy links to different areas of contribs, which presumably is the main reason anyone on RC patrol would want to use an editcount tool. Are there any violent objections? :) If no, all's well then. ENCEPHALON 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
{{ TestTemplatesNotice}} has good information, but I find it too much to have it transcluded in every user warning template (of which there is a huge number).
See for example the page of {{ Spam2}}. The text of {Spam2} is very short, but look at how much stuff there is around it. I understand that it is not included when subst'ed, but nevertheless, does it really belong there?
How about incuding {{ TestTemplatesNotice}} only in Category: User warning templates, at the very top, instead of each and every template in that category? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I placed those templates; I apologize for not discussing first - I didn't realize it would be controversial. I agree that the boxes are overshadowing the warnings themselves - something smaller might be better. Basically, for a while I did not know about WP:WARN and would struggle to find the right warnings to use. I started to create navigation templates like Template:spam-nav but when I got to Template:test-nav, there were so many inter-related warnings that I figured a giant navigation box like that would be more controversial than a link to WP:WARN :) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-02-08 22:51 Z
This is a new template I just made. It is used to notify users who are blocked because their usernames are too similar to existing users. Please let me what you think. -- Ixfd64 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This template notifies users that their accounts have been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. However, this template also provides instructions on how to appeal a block. -- Ixfd64 04:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I recently worked on a new block template - you can see it here - and I added a bunch of new features that I think are very useful. It allows you to say how long the block will last for as well as the page that was vandalized that caused the block. It also signs your name and time automatically and provides a link to the block log so the user or other admins can easily see the block log of that user. I see no reason why all of the block templates shouldn't have at least these last two features as they are very useful. The auto-signing feature only works when the template is subst'ed; luckily, that's how they're supposed to be used. Check it out and tell me what you think. -- Cyde Weys 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
May I ask: what happened to the idea of standardizing these things? It's been months, and the user warning templates are still wildly inconsistent.
I would suggest something like this. We would have a number of warn categories (remove, blank, nonsense, false, libel, move-nonsense, move-uncommon, pov, censor, civil, attack, remove-warn, remove-dispute, legal, spam, 3rr, nn), and for each one, there would be a set of templates. These templates could universally follow the progression {{warn warntype #|optional page name}}, with 0 being a welcome message (à la Template:Welcomenpov) and 3 being a final warning. It would take me (or anyone else) probably a day or two to write up all the hundred or so templates for examination, discussion, and consensus-building, and we could have a much more consistent template system within a few weeks.
Is there some reason this hasn't happened? Should I just make the templates and put them up for discussion? Are there any objections to this standardization? One need only look at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Grid of warnings to see what a mess this currently is, with rampant redundancy, omissions, and confusion. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just created {{ userify}}. It looks like this:
I hope it can prove useful to the WikiProject.-- M @ r ē ino 00:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does it say User:currentpagename? Shouldn't it say User:username or User:username/pagenamehere instead? – Tifego (t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just wondering what the logic is behind the links within the warning templates to the article the user has either vandalised or created in error (on purpose or otherwise). Is it really wise to create an easy path back to these things for a frequent vandal or vanity bio creator? I may be missing a major point, and if so please point it out. BTW, the links to the Sandbox and explanations of policy are great, just not to articles which have been vandalised, in my opinion. Thoughts? Mak emi 03:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that some administrators will block suspicious accounts with summaries like "please contact an administrator for verification purposes" and such. I've made the template {{ unverified user}} that would hopefully be some help. -- Ixfd64 01:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Granted I'm not a fan of these in the first place, but I object to "This is your last warning... if... you will be blocked..." for slightly different reasons: it is sometimes not followed up, and if it is, it is with a temporary block. This usually results in several "last" warnings. It is a lame ultimatum with little credibility. I'm not advocating remedying this by making blocks permanent, of course. -Dan 17:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes, we would see an anonymous user editing a user page. Often, due to the nature of the edits, it is hard to tell whether the user is vandalizing or editing their own user page while not logged in. I made this template for asking users to log in before editing their user page. -- Ixfd64 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been playing with a little template for a specific kind of copyright violation I've seen several instances of: the addition of song lyrics to an article about a band/musician/song/etc. They most often seem to be a good-faith attempt to improve the article, made without a proper understanding of copyright and Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, I first wrote a little blurb (intended to be friendly) for my own use, notifying the editor in question that the lyrics have been removed and pointing them to pages that would help explain why. What I'm wondering now is if this would be something useful for other editors.
As a Wiki-newbie, I defer to those with more wisdom and experience. :) Is this something "worth" a template? And if it is, any input on wording, links, etc., is more than welcome.
The (very beta) version of the template can be found at User:PaperTruths/copyvio-lyrics, and the implementation can be found at User:PaperTruths/White_space#Templates. Thanks for your time! — PaperTruths ( Talk) 08:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've just created this template in response to a recent collateral damage incident with User:202.6.138.34. I haven't created a template before so I'd appreciate any input, including whether we already have a template for this. Thanks TigerShark 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have just created this template to warn new users away from creating nonsense articles. If there is consensus here that it will be useful, I will move it to a permanent template. -- Richard0612 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I will gradually be creating a progressive series of these [see my templates page] [in accordance with your documentation], any help would be appreciated [I'm rather new to this!] -- Richard0612 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made an alternative version of test4. The original test4 could be misleading, as it does not guarantee that the warned vandal will be blocked. This is especially true when no administrators are online. -- Ixfd64 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I know of a way to eliminate the -n warnings while still allowing users to optionally put the page in. It is based on " ParserFunctions." These use system templates for if and other operations, see WP:PF. The code for test will then be:
Thank you for experimenting with on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you will put in the page that was reverted in the parameter, it will display the text, otherwise, it won't. The function will still be displayed in edit mode when it is subst'ed on the page, but it will still work. While it is wikicode, it is inside the warning, so it is not harmful (the warning itself should not be edited anyway). The templates will continue to work as before, but there will be no reason to remember the -n series (which will be converted to redirects), so putting warnings on user talk pages will be easier. Any comments? Polonium 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd been looking around for quite a while, for a policy on User page templates. Having not found one, I'd done a few edits of my own to the templates to try and bring some harmonisation. In the last couple of weeks I'd created this here with a view to bringing everything together. I'd got to the next part of getting ideas and someone pointed me in your direction. Well anyway, is there anyway I can help? Regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to see that we have different groups beginning discussion on cleaning up the warning system. Right now, I am using this system and find it useful:
==Editing Concerns==
#{{subst:test1}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test2}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test3}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test4}} ~~~~
This is how it looks in action: [1]. I particularly like to make it clear to other users in the edit summary which test we are at, i.e. "test 1", "test 2" and so forth. I think it would be great if whatever system develops does something along these lines. It is especially helpful when we run into users who try to blank their warnings. Thanks to y'all for taking initiative in this. - Kukini 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I also occasionally leave a suggestion to others who revert vandalism but forget, or don't know about their ability to warn vandals. My current message is here:
{{subst:User:Kukini/pleasewarnvandals}} -- ~~~~
It looks like this now:
Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [2]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for this, as long as I don't start to get spammed by it every time I give first offenses a warnings freebie.
Also, I'd say the work you did in your userspace was not a waste – your ideas deserve further mention here. Regarding unifying templates, I hope it won't sound like advertising to invite you to weigh in on the idea of combining the named and "unnamed" warning templates at the link I provided above. I think this would combat discrepancies between wording on said templates. --
Omicronpersei8 (
talk) 17:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Kukini's idea of numbering the warnings is a good idea, but, and it's a big but. I don't usually start with test1 warnings. To give a test1 warning for blatant vandalism, is a waste of time IMHO, whereas the wording of test2 and mentioning that it is nonsense is more apt. I do give test1 when it's obviously a mess around, but when it's a serious vandal if they vandalise within 5 mins of a test2 then it's straight to test4. I see vandals all the time ignore no matter how many warning you throw at them, and it's just how fast you can get them to AIV. Omni, having had a couple of hours since I found you lot exist, and a nice bottle of Languedoc, what I might do is continue with my template ideas keep them all on my template pages, and once you see the finalised versions you (the collective you) may take them if you wish. I'm not talking drastic changes for the sake of changes just I would like to see everything along the same lines. Cheers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've spent the last couple of hours trying to work out a way of doing a before and after page for the existing templates, but it'd be helluva alot of work. I certainly don't wish to step on anyones toes here, but I'd certainly be willing to take an active part in this program, and still use my pages I've created to help this program. When a modification is done to the pages what is the protocol here? Alot of the changes I'm seeing are just on syntax. i.e. test2: do not add nonsense whereas test2-n: refrain from adding nonsense. It's a simple example but alot of the changes I'd like to carry out are along these lines. Some of the ideas I have, such as removing the behave template and incorporating it into joke how would I go about these? Cheers for any feedback Khukri ( talk . contribs) 21:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently some users think that usernames with non-latin chars in their names can be blocked for this without discussion. The only evidence I have of this is the relevant clause in Template:Usernameblocked. I left a note on the talk page there, and hope that clause can be removed. +sj + 04:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
—[ admin] Pathoschild 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Names with non- Latin characters: Unfortunately, most of your fellow editors will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts. Many of them will also be additionally burdened, as such names may be displayed for them only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or worse, nonsense or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is usually written in a non-Latin script, please consider transliterating it to avoid confusion, and allow easier access to your talk page by typing your name in the search field or URL bar.
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
See User_talk:193.201.135.244; at the footer of the page is a new idea for a template encouraging anons to create accounts. I would be interested to hear your opinions. -- SunStar Net 11:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I just whipped up a userbox for participants; see {{ User Warning Project}}.
I swear I'll make actual contributions to the project, but that was a pretty quick and easy thing to do. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please use this talk page for any alarm harmonisation ideas. Regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 12:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to see that we have different groups beginning discussion on cleaning up the warning system, although I am not sure I like the idea of warnings being removed. What does that mean? Also, right now, I am using this system and like it:
==Editing Concerns==
#{{subst:test1}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test2}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test3}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test4}} ~~~~
One of the reasons I like it is that it makes warning count easy and thus makes it clear when someone has vandalized enough to merit a block. Let me find an example of how I am doing this in action: [3] What do you think? - Kukini 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
How about making all templates into <div>s or wikitables? This solution has two added values:
M isza 13 10:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What a lot of effort you've put into this!!!!
It looks great; I have to say that I wholeheartedly support your ideas.
Before your date with the wine, I'd suggest that you make the others working on this problem aware of your ideas. I especially like the use of images (and I favor yours to any others I've seen suggested); that will make the warnings seem more serious, and as people are visual learners, after all.
Anyway, let me know if you need me for anything else! :) Srose (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Before we can get any further with hammering out the details listed below, I believe we should obtain some form of concensus, as to the templates structure. Currently there are two ideas on the board
Note: I use the word warnings alot which I realise does not instantly AGF, but for the purposes of this project warnings / messages are interchangeable. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 09:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Levels 0 - 3 & then use S-blocks As per guidelines
Levels 0 - 6 As per tradition
Neutral
Standardise template name syntax
All templates must have same look and feel, if bold text highlights a word in one template, bold in all. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Number of warning categories only have for example warnings 2 - 3. Create the spectrum of warnings adhering to content syntax. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Only pre-approved images to be used, and all to be similar size.
Exceptions? Shared educational IP Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
to recap with Pathos's 0-3 levels it would look something like
Level 0, 1
or
Level 2 warnings
Level 3 warning or S-blocks
S-block3
not used
OK I know Pathos is against the images, but I'm sure he/she can be persuaded ;). Also Pathos just an aesthetic question, would you mind if the border on s-bock three was the same as the other s-blocks. you've got a nice big cross symbol there, room for discussion? I'll trade you one image from above for the red border ;) —
unsigned by
Khukri 15:11, October 26, 2006.
Create Obvious vandalism either ov0 - 6 or vand0 - 6 templates to replace vw and blatant vandal etc. Test warning are exactly for as the name suggests for people carrying out persistant tests, not for deliberate vandalism. Vandalism is vandalism and should be named thus. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Behave warning becomes joke0 and joke --> joke1, funnybut --> joke2, Seriously --> Joke3, create joke 4,5 & 6 then tidied. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
All block templates to be the same colour and format with maybe exceptions of the icon(see above), along the lines of vblock Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
3rr, mos, lang, date, wr, spam, npa, threat need all the levels 0 - 6 including -n's
Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Create copyright level 0 - 6, and remove different names for same offence as per joke and ov. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Some warnings include ==Title==, this should either apply to all or a type of warning, i.e. level 4, or to none at all. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Warnings which include ~~~~ should be removed Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Defban and defwarning -> def0 - 6 Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
AGF is it blockable? If not reword agf3 -> agf2 if so create all agf's Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Add this comment to all templates, to make sure they remain harmonised long after we're finished. <!-- Please do not make any modifications to this template, prior to discussing any changes at the Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings or WP:UW --> Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a good idea to harmonise the templates. I also like the ideas of images. However having templates 0 to 6 for lesser used templates like agf may be a bit of overkill. -- Gurubrahma 10:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this is excellent. Let me know if I can help - and AGF is not blockable. KillerChihuahua ?!? 11:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've created Template:WPUW just for testing purposes, to save having loads of test templates
Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Cheers Avi for the info, looking at what we have then I would think it's very easy to have what we could call guidance messages level 0 - 2, and then for want of a better word rebuking messages 3 - 4, and then the blocks 5 - 6. I'm going to create a new WP:TT page here in the next week, which we can keep track of who's done what and our overall status. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As I can't edit alot of the pages, what I will do is create a page linked to the project page (upload) which will list the text to be cut n pasted and the name of the destination template. Also I would maybe like to s-prot all templates once finished. But is it necessary to have some of the templates fully protected, and others not at all. If we are protecting blocking templates then they should all be protected, but I and many others will have all these templates eventually in our watch lists, and can revert any vandalism on sight. Cheers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Khukri ( talk . contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
==Upcoming template changes==
Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit [[WP:UW|WikiProject user warnings]] and harmonisation discussion [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/templates|pages]] to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards ~~~~
This talk page will be used for suggested Guidelines for our Wikiproject.
I just wanted to show an example of a page that will benefit greatly from our project. 195.93.21.97. There are many warnings given, notices that it's an AOL IP, responses from legit AOL users, and some gibberish inbetween. The headings are inconsistant, and just overall messy.
That is a perfect example of the type of page we can help! The quicker we can get users to join our project, and come up with some guidelines to go by, the quicker we can be helping the editors of wikipedia! -- light darkness 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think that they should be categorized by month, but perhaps subcategorizing them by day might be helpful sometimes. If it's an IP that constantly vandalizes, it would probably be easier to read that way. If someone has a warning under a header with the Article title, it should be moved to a month header instead.
It would also be nice if we made a section for IPs comments, but how this would be "enforced," I don't know.-- Shanel 20:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been working to standardise user warnings layout for a while, and developed a set of unwritten guidelines which were improved over time. I've been meaning to codify these guidelines through my WikiProject on user warnings, but this WikiProject would be better suited towards that goal. (On an unrelated note, the WikiProject name is a bit too specific; are we uninterested in registered vandal talk pages? How about the WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation? :D)
== Warnings ==
, seperate from comments.{{s/wnote}}
should be
subst'd; this template gives quick access to information and tools useful to both admin and non-admin during the administrator intervention process.=== January 2006 ===
.Example:
== Warnings == {{subst:s/wnote}} === January 2005 === # {{test}} # {{test4}} * {{s/block}} # {{test4}} # {{test4}}
The guidelines above call for the use of list syntax. Due to a "feature" in MediaWiki's parsing, line breaks and newlines break list format; all templates are modified to fix this problem as of December 2005. Older warnings will break the list format. // Pathoschild ( admin / talk) 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As has been said elsewhere, I am not sure putting {{ s/wnote}} on the User talk page is a good idea in general; it is like branding. On IP portal pages like AOL, or a particular school, that would be better; as it does not seem as if it is picking on one particular person. However, a registered vandal or a singular IP should not get this, IMO. -- Avi 03:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that we've got a pretty good list of guidelines to follow, should we update the main page with "This is exactly what you should do", and throw a "Suggested Guideline" on the page? I'm just wondering what you all think the next step is. -- light darkness ( talk) 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I regularly remove AOL warnings older than a few days. I would like to add this to the guidelines (under an "AOL" subheading), along with the following explanation.
Any thoughts ? // Pathoschild ( admin / talk) 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this. It encourages vandalism by AOL users. If they want to be worthwhile contributors, they can get an account, and even all out blocks don't affect their ability to read articles. -- M @ r ē ino 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia already seems mighty soft on vandalism; why this push to expunge records of vandalism after 90 days? What problem is it solving? -- A. B. 03:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A side note to this issue - how is keeping the warnings going to work given the current ambivalence over whether or not its kosher to randomly remove things from you talk page? Or is this meant to be a more sane way to track IP vandalism?
Shell
babelfish 08:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm triggered to look at vandals when they hit one of the articles on my watchlist. Being familiar with the topics, it's clear what's vandalism. Then I start looking at all their edits to other articles. I see that a bot has reversed their edit, but often bots just revert to another anon's edit, often vandalistic.
If I look at that anon's edit and it's changing a date from 1924 to 1928, is that vandalistic? Should it be edited out if subsequent editors haven't spotted it? Being an unfamiliar topic, the answer's unclear to me. A quick way to deal with question is to look at the anon's talk page -- if it's full of warnings, I'll edit it out the new date with a comment to the article's other editors to check the date, either in my edit summary [4] or on the talk page. Otherwise, I assume good faith and move on. Some accounts are virtually vandalism only, but the edits are of a low enough frequency that there may be only one warning or puzzled comment ("why did you do that?") in the last 90 days. Likewise, a talk page full of discussions with other editors about articles quickly shows this is probably a good faith editor.
Questions of this sort crop up several times a week when I'm reversing vandalism. It's nice to have the full history.
Subtle, uncaught vandalism such as a slight date or location changes are ultimately worse for Wikipedia's reliablility than the "JOEY is Gay!!!" kind -- at least readers are not unknowing absorbing deliberate misinformation since they just tune out the Joey stuff. -- A. B. 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
At the very least, perhaps when warnings are removed, a blurb could be added to the top of the page indicating that the warnings were trimmed, and that the removed message can be found in the history? -- AbsolutDan (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. I created User:Pathoschild/Template:History to link to the text in the history. For technical reasons, it's impossible to obtain the current or previous revision id of a page.
{{ User:Pathoschild/Template:History}} | Older messages have been archived to the page history. (No revision id specified.) |
{{ User:Pathoschild/Template:History|37559220}} | Older messages have been archived to the page history. |
—[ admin] Pathoschild 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, Sorry I've been a bit quiet the last couple of days, but I'm just planning a trip back to the UK. So I'll be incommunicado, for the next week or so and I'll re-start this around 10th Nov. cheers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 10:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm triggered to look at vandals when they hit one of the articles on my watchlist. Being familiar with the topics, it's clear what's vandalism. Then I start looking at all their edits to other articles. I see that a bot has reversed their edit, but often bots just revert to another anon's edit, often vandalistic.
If I look at that anon's edit and it's changing a date from 1924 to 1928, is that vandalistic? Should it be edited out if subsequent editors haven't spotted it? Being an unfamiliar topic, the answer's unclear to me. A quick way to deal with question is to look at the anon's talk page -- if it's full of warnings, I'll edit it out the new date with a comment to the article's other editors to check the date, either in my edit summary [7] or on the talk page. Otherwise, I assume good faith and move on. Some accounts are virtually vandalism only, but the edits are of a low enough frequency that there may be only one warning or puzzled comment ("why did you do that?") in the last 90 days. Likewise, a talk page full of discussions with other editors about articles quickly shows this is probably a good faith editor.
Questions of this sort crop up several times a week when I'm reversing vandalism. It's nice to have the full history.
Subtle, uncaught vandalism such as a slight date or location changes are ultimately worse for Wikipedia's reliablility than the "JOEY is Gay!!!" kind -- at least readers are not unknowing absorbing deliberate misinformation since they just tune out the Joey stuff. -- A. B. 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
At the very least, perhaps when warnings are removed, a blurb could be added to the top of the page indicating that the warnings were trimmed, and that the removed message can be found in the history? -- AbsolutDan (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. I created User:Pathoschild/Template:History to link to the text in the history. For technical reasons, it's impossible to obtain the current or previous revision id of a page.
{{ User:Pathoschild/Template:History}} | Older messages have been archived to the page history. (No revision id specified.) |
{{ User:Pathoschild/Template:History|37559220}} | Older messages have been archived to the page history. |
—[ admin] Pathoschild 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
OK I've had a first pass at adding all the warnings to the above that we will cover. I've highlighted warnings because I think after we have done this we should look at the other talk page templates i.e welcome, shared IP, etc. This is only a first pass, have a look through and make any mods you see fit. I think we should look to start this next Monday? I've already assigned myself three sets of warnings, take the others as you see fit. Cheers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know a good bot writer? I think it may come in handy that as soon as someone uses an old template even with the redirect, it comes in behind, tidies it then send the user a polite message with a link to the new overview table? I'll have a look round but would appreciate any volunteers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You guys should sound off some of this stuff or just talk to the folks at irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam-t, the wikipedia-spam talk channel. It's full of RC patrollers/vandal fighters, bot builders and seasoned admins all of whom are looking to squash vandals + spam. Being one of them, I drop a ton of user_talk warnings all over the place, and anyone there could have some good insight into this project. Take Thadius856's many unencyclopedic external link warning templates - we've been trying out template stuff too. JoeSmack Talk 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's helluva quiet with all these names that keep getting added. C'mon get stuck in pleeaassssseee! Khukri ( talk . contribs) 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a couple of days ago I ran upon User:John_Reaves/grid - which seems to be a user's individual way of tracking names of warning messages - a similar thing to what we are doing here. It could come in very handy! -- Chuq 07:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Reword delete 0 - 2 to reflect as well as text removal or page blanking, it's to cover deletion of any procedural messages on a page, covers speedy delete, AFD, etc. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Recreation warning 0 - 2 covers spam-warning and recreated Khukri ( talk . contribs) 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Has anybody here created any of the new templates, such as on a temporary page? I would like to help out, and it would be useful to see some of what we are going for. -- kenb215 talk 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding somemore redirects to the overview page, and concerning my deletion proposal on the templates page, about adding the 'deletion of templates' warning to the delete template, I've had no repsonses so tomorrow I'll add them as re-directs. Cheers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just added myself as "active" (by accident). I then realized there was also an "interested" section. While I haven't done anything yet, I want to be more involved than "interested" and if I can, enough to be considered "active", so I left myself there. What is there that I can start on? I've had some experience with reorganizing the templates, as I added the {{ spam0}} template, reorganized the spam template nav box, as well as some stuff with getting rid of the -n templates. I just didn't know their was a WikiProject! Let me know what I can do. -- Renesis ( talk) 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've moded the base template to move the image away from the text and to make it look tidier. I've also added a standard text which looking through the overview can be modified to fit most of our new templates. Here's the base template and I've modified the {{ delete}} and {{ vandalism}} from templates to follow it. This is only an example so any ideas please feel free I won't be offended, edit away. Anyway I'm off skiing for a long weekend so my work here is done...... for now. P.S. Renesis, Iced Kola & Pathoschild, you've gone quiet, I need you guys to put these in place, Cheers. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any interest for something like this? Banned users' IPs cannot be blocked indefinitely unless they are on static IPs. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 17:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I was a bit confused by this edit: [10], especially since I can't seem to find the consensus on this talk page, Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Help:Everything or the project page for not including headers in warnings. They seem useful for organizational purposes, and save time we'd have to spend typing a unique header each time we use a warning when only a generic one is really needed. -- W.marsh 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I created the article creation warning templates, and I would appreciate if anyone can review them and make any improvements they think would be good. As for the tpv templates, I should get to them on friday or a bit earlier. // I c e d K o l a 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled into this page by accident more or less. I think the outlines on the template page are very good. They are clearer than many of the current templates. I've been frequently frustrated with the number of times a vandal can strike before a ban is put in place. On the pages I watch, most are vandalized by anonymous users with a long history of vandalism. I look forward to being able to use this template structure, which will result in faster bans for blatant vandals in my opinion. Keep up the good work. Thanks, Dan Slotman 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the remaining warnings on the overview page, the warning for releasing another editors personal info and legal threats. IMHO these are warnings that one cannot assume good faith with, they are done with intention and usually for malicious reasons. My idea is that we create a nuclear level of warnings, of a one warning and then a blocked. Whaddya think? Khukri ( talk . contribs) 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Legal threats are frequently malicious, but not always. I suggest having a level 2 warning while starting at level 3 when appropriate. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-12-19 01:02Z
A quick look through Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview made me discover we're not including auto-inserting signatures into the warnings. Since they are mostly made as <div>s or wikitables, a signature dangling below it won't look good. So, maybe we should embed them inside the table/div? М иша 13 10:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Having signatures embedded, and I suppose the whole div/table thing, makes the warnings very brittle. There should be a way to add more text, at least an extra parameter. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-12-19 01:00Z
OK, we need to think carefully about this, I'm willing to wait until we have all the templates for review before we take a decision on this one. I understand the problem but the main reason I took on the work here was to see harmony amongst all templates. For continuing my plans of world domination, after this project I'm most probably going to start looking at all other templates, i.e welcome messages, edit summary, etc and whatever we put into place here I feel should be extended to all templates.
So anyone else working here, roll up roll up, all ideas accepted. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think all level 2 should have the "!" in the triangle symbol and all level 3 to have the stop hand symbol. Someone just scrolling through a talk page will be alerted to the warning if they see a symbol like that. T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 16:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Incase anyone didn't see them this is where we looked at the images. I don't want to re-initiate the whole discussion at this late stage, but am sure we can quickly look at any other ideas, if they're mentioned quickly. Otherwise we'll always be stuck in the same place, as new editors come onboard. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 08:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the discussion about level 3, I probably missed it. Sorry if I bring a point that has already been discussed.
I have some concerns about the wording of the level3 template: "The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked.". An editor that gets the level3 template is most probably a vandal and might see it as a challenge "you don't dare doing that again". Most of RC changes patrollers however don't have admin tools and can't issue blocks. I think a better wording would be that the next time the user will be reported to an admin for measures. a bit like "The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be reported to the administrative group and may be blocked". -- lucasbfr talk 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Seem to also cover NOR - suggest we rename those to nor0, nor1, as opposed to unsourced0, unsourced1 etc. Easier to remember and faster to type. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua ?!? 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, sorry did not even know this Wikiproject existed.
I thought I would tell you guys three things that I am doing at the moment with CSD warning templates, and see you have any comments or issues.
I suppose there might be some big issues with the final point, considering one of the Goals on this project is to have NO HEADINGS. But maybe you might want to consider the solution mentioned above - allow best of both worlds. Cheers Lethaniol 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay will get to it, also would like to help out, will add my name to the list, and help out in new year cheers Lethaniol 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Using some fancy template syntax, I have managed to enrich some existing projects with the following features:
{{{2}}}
- this will be embedded within the message box right after the standard text.{{...|sig=n}}
, it will not be inserted.All this is done with this piece of code:
{{{2|}}} {{subst:<includeonly></includeonly>#ifeq:{{{sig}}}|n| |~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~}}
Also, we're switching the design from <div>s to wikitables. This has few advantages, including that the images will not "spill" out of the message boxes if the text is very short. Few existing projects have already been converted to the new scheme. You can see a demo on User:Khukri/templates - when creating new templates series, please copy that code (in edit-mode, not by subst:'ing). Thank you, М иша 13 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Is this going to add a lot of markup when substituted? (I guess it's really a missing feature in MediaWiki that you can't "fully transclude and remove all template markup".) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-12-19 22:36Z
Hi. I've read that it's okay to remove warnings from your own talk page, but have re-discovered what I thought to be the rule, so my question is, when should a template like Template:Removewarn (is there any other like it?) be used, if at all? THanks. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just bitten for the first time for leaving an edit summaries reminder on a fellow Wikipedian. Can't say I'm surprised, for I knew something like this would happen. I should've listened more to my gut feelings; the current template may look like a warning to some, even though it should never rise to that level, and while I understand it's guidelines and believe it should be done etc, some people just don't see the point, and until they do, no amount of pleading will change their perspective. I don't know what the solution is. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think {{ test}} should redirect to {{ test0}} like it says in the table, it should go to test1, there'll be less confusion among editors. -- WikiSlasher 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There are only 5 more templates to be taken, so if you have a spare 20 mins please help yourselves.
The next step, once all of the template pages are completed, we will leave the pages on review for a couple of weeks, putting a banner ad on the project page announcing they are for review and any comments are to be left on the talk page and we will do any modifications. I suggest what with Chrimbo and new year, we leave the review period until the 2nd week of January, thoughts please?
After that will be to set an implementation day, we are lucky enough to have a number of admins on the interested and active list. A fair few of our templates are fully protected, so I suggest the day before implementation you (the admins amongst us) change all templates from fully to semi protected so editors like myself can do some of the work. Then we change over all in the quickest possible time including the redirects. Also I recommend that all of us involved meet up on an IRC channel prior to put everything into place to hammer out any details. So when do we go for it? I'm ok most days and I suggest a morning UTC so we can get all of the European and American editors in the same place at the same time at a reasonable hour, and any date except the 21st Jan as it my birthday, and I will be drinking at a rugby match somewhere! Khukri ( talk . contribs) 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There's another project looking at the layout of warnings, who as far as I can see have a similar remit to us. I left a message with them a couple of weeks back with no responses, but I can see no reason why we don't merge their project into ours. Any thought please? Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Pathos I know you are involved heavily in both projects. I'm having a look round at your mandate here, and the mandate of the revitalised User Warnings Project and there is alot of synergy and think we can pool our resources. Any thoughts on a merge of projects and resources? Regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed on the overview page that the page move templates are listed with question marks at the bottom of the first redirect table. Is there a reason that they haven't been moved to the main section? It seems as if it could be included easily, by adding this line to the end:
Page moves | {{ move0}} | {{ move1}} | {{ move2}} | {{ move3}} | Yes | Unassigned | Not started |
---|
-- kenb215 talk 23:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm really not sure where to ask this question, but here goes. I'm involved with Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which lists and evaluates non-English pages before they are PROD'ed, speedied, or put up for AfD. As part of that work, we warn the posters of the non-English content, using {{subst:UE}}. Now, that template already has one optional parameter, to list the name of the article posted. But I would really like there to be another such parameter, where we could specify the language edition Wikipedia of the content. That could produce a message encouraging the user to contribute to that specific language Wikipedia. Basically, I'm thinking something like {{subst:UE|Article|ru.wikipedia.org}}. At PNT, users are already identifying language-of-content, and I really think this modification could be helpful. How/where do I propose this template modification? Thanks for the assistance. -- Fsotrain 09 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
When should we start transferring the templates on the subpages to their new pages? T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay-I'm not that good at parser functions, but from looking at the template, I was able to remove one function that was in the template twice. However, the article function doesn't seem to working the way that the usage stated, and the way it should be if you look at which function number it is. Help is needed. T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the usage template, which is not included in transclusioning, can sometimes differ from the actual usage, like the block templates. So, I think that the actual usage template should be subst'd on the template page, and then fixed to conform with the template it's talking about. T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 18:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
On the overview page, when it lists where to redirect, what do the new sections with the number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mean? T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind TeckWiz, but I copied your post over from my talk page, as it's quite a pertinant discussion, and needs the whole projects input.
Since we have separated test templates and vandalism templates, I don't see why we should have a vandalism level 0. If you can't give it above a 0, it's really a test, not vandalism, as current guidelines state to start at level 2 for nonsense and such. I personally don't even think there should be a vand1, but other users do so it should stay. I think there should be no level 0 for other types of vandalism also, like blanking. T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
All of this work is admirable, but there is something that is going to cause massive problems when this is implemented, and may even cause all of these templates to be rolled back: The proposed list has the {{ test0}}, {{ test1}}, {{ test2}}, {{ test3}} and {{ block}} scale, but it eliminates the {{ test4}} level, making it equal to a current {{ test5}}. Administrators who don't RC patrol, vandal patrollers coming back from wikibreaks, or even well-informed users already know that {{ test4}} means final warning. Any attempts to change that are going to go against a deeply engraved grain, and may meet considerable resistance. It would be much easier to just keep {{ test4}} and have the rest of the changes adjust to having one more level. Tito xd( ?!?) 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, we can just shift all the levels up one; for example the current test0 is test1, test1 is test2, test2 is test3, etc. I'm only suggesting, as a 1 -> 4 system is easier to remember than a 0 -> 3 system (at least to me). - 210 physicq ( c) 00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem of level changing (agreeing with Tixtoxd that changing from the levels we're all used to will create mistakes and have huge pushback), plus the difficult implementation problems, are solved if the new templates are all installed at new names. That way the old ones can be slowly deprecated over time, as the migration process may take months, given number of people, not to mention programs, used to them. Redirecting existing testN templates to other existing testN templates is asking for trouble. We might use creativity to come up with new pithy names, or use a new common prefix, such as "uw-". — Quarl ( talk) 2006-12-29 23:03Z
This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2006 ( index). 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. |
I discovered the existence of this category of warnings in a template deletion vote, and realized that I object to them on principle. These messages are apparently designed to be placed on user talk pages—which to my mind is somewhat the equivalent of email—a place where one person is writing another person. It's my sense that automating these messages is going to lead to a mechanistic and alienating experience for those who receive them.
The cases being specifically discussed in TFD were related to regal styles, a la Template:Styles3. The scenario I found in my head was: "An enthusiast of British royalty makes several well-intentioned edits to an article, one of which was to add the honorific styles". I think the existence of a boilerplate response encourages a dehumanizing attitude in dealing with such a person which might overlook the positive changes he has made. It would likely make those posting the warning to not feel the need to browse the person's user page in order to preface their remarks with a friendly and contextually-appropriate greeting.
Right now wiki is a very uniform medium, and there is no question that getting more structure and standardization to information is good. Yet I really think the user-to-user communication is a different endeavor from the rest of the encyclopedia, and different rules should apply. We have the power to link and reference, which is an excellent tool that can be employed in giving someone a useful heads-up to policy. But I'm concerned that in the sensitive domain of "warning" people that a wall-of-templates isn't healthy. It's sort of like "talk to the hand" (metaphorically, if not literally using the graphic). Metaeducation 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I had been following this project for some time as it is on my watchlist. Today, I had to create a new template, namely, Template:Test0-n as I increasingly see the need for it on my RC patrol. As my particpation is limited in this project, I request you to review the template, standardise it and its talk page. TIA, -- Gurubrahma 14:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
So currently there is {{ no source}} and {{ no license}} and I found {{ Image no source last warning}}}} which realy doesnt do much, there needs to be one for repeat violators of no source/license images... -- Admrb♉ltz ( T | C) 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the proto-template {{ s/wnote}}: This template is a bad idea. Messages left on user talk pages should be messages to that user (or from him/her). This template is a reminder to other editors, which is likely to be confusing to the owner of the talk page who may think (legitimately) that it is a message for him/her. Also, this template sends the wrong message, contrary to the ideals of WP:BITE and Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. This template sends the message that "We know you are a vandal, and will never be anything but a vandal, so we've added this permanent control panel to your talk page to make it easier to punish you." This will not encourage people to give up vandalism. Comments appreciated. TfD forthcoming otherwise.-- Srleffler 00:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find this project on the Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects.... Did I miss it somewhere? -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any limitation on who can use these, and which ones they can use? [...] Are there no safeguards against abuse of these warnings? Or can anybody use them to harrass anybody?
Davidkevin 07:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
How about non warnings like template:test1-n sectioned under the name of the article used as example, the use of non -n templates depreciated, the adding of numbered lists prefix # to warning and blocked templates and put under a single user talk page section "Warnings"?:
===George W. Bush===
Thanks for experimenting with the page George W. Bush on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-20 t06:42z
Warnings.
- Please refrain from adding nonsense, as you did to George W. Bush, to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-21 t06:42z
- Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to George W. Bush, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-22 t06:42z
- Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-23 t06:42z
- This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to George W. Bush, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-24 t06:42z
5.
You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalizing the George W. Bush article. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to do so after the block expires. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-25 t06:42z6.
You have been blocked from editing for 10 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for blanking the George W. Bush article. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to do so after the block expires. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-27 t06:42z7.
You have been blocked from editing for 100 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalizing the George W. Bush article. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to do so after the block expires. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-27 t06:42z
-- Jeandré, 2006-02-27 t06:42z
The "non-n" templates are still sometimes useful. If a user has vandalized multiple pages I will typically revert each and leave a single "non-n" warning. The user knows what he has done, and doesn't need a separate warning for each.-- Srleffler 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I was just surfing about and just found your excellent little wikiproject. I've long thought that we need to standardize the templates and figure out a better way to keep track of vandals and their prior histories. The latter can be a bit hard to do in the heat of RC patrol, and I daresay your {{ S/wnote}} makes this a little easier (since it has all those links within easy reach) and reminds other patrollers to subst. I have made one change to the template which I hope was not being entirely too bold :). I changed the link from kate's wonderful tool to interiot's even more wonderful tool: interiot's provides easy links to different areas of contribs, which presumably is the main reason anyone on RC patrol would want to use an editcount tool. Are there any violent objections? :) If no, all's well then. ENCEPHALON 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
{{ TestTemplatesNotice}} has good information, but I find it too much to have it transcluded in every user warning template (of which there is a huge number).
See for example the page of {{ Spam2}}. The text of {Spam2} is very short, but look at how much stuff there is around it. I understand that it is not included when subst'ed, but nevertheless, does it really belong there?
How about incuding {{ TestTemplatesNotice}} only in Category: User warning templates, at the very top, instead of each and every template in that category? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I placed those templates; I apologize for not discussing first - I didn't realize it would be controversial. I agree that the boxes are overshadowing the warnings themselves - something smaller might be better. Basically, for a while I did not know about WP:WARN and would struggle to find the right warnings to use. I started to create navigation templates like Template:spam-nav but when I got to Template:test-nav, there were so many inter-related warnings that I figured a giant navigation box like that would be more controversial than a link to WP:WARN :) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-02-08 22:51 Z
This is a new template I just made. It is used to notify users who are blocked because their usernames are too similar to existing users. Please let me what you think. -- Ixfd64 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This template notifies users that their accounts have been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. However, this template also provides instructions on how to appeal a block. -- Ixfd64 04:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I recently worked on a new block template - you can see it here - and I added a bunch of new features that I think are very useful. It allows you to say how long the block will last for as well as the page that was vandalized that caused the block. It also signs your name and time automatically and provides a link to the block log so the user or other admins can easily see the block log of that user. I see no reason why all of the block templates shouldn't have at least these last two features as they are very useful. The auto-signing feature only works when the template is subst'ed; luckily, that's how they're supposed to be used. Check it out and tell me what you think. -- Cyde Weys 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
May I ask: what happened to the idea of standardizing these things? It's been months, and the user warning templates are still wildly inconsistent.
I would suggest something like this. We would have a number of warn categories (remove, blank, nonsense, false, libel, move-nonsense, move-uncommon, pov, censor, civil, attack, remove-warn, remove-dispute, legal, spam, 3rr, nn), and for each one, there would be a set of templates. These templates could universally follow the progression {{warn warntype #|optional page name}}, with 0 being a welcome message (à la Template:Welcomenpov) and 3 being a final warning. It would take me (or anyone else) probably a day or two to write up all the hundred or so templates for examination, discussion, and consensus-building, and we could have a much more consistent template system within a few weeks.
Is there some reason this hasn't happened? Should I just make the templates and put them up for discussion? Are there any objections to this standardization? One need only look at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Grid of warnings to see what a mess this currently is, with rampant redundancy, omissions, and confusion. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just created {{ userify}}. It looks like this:
I hope it can prove useful to the WikiProject.-- M @ r ē ino 00:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does it say User:currentpagename? Shouldn't it say User:username or User:username/pagenamehere instead? – Tifego (t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just wondering what the logic is behind the links within the warning templates to the article the user has either vandalised or created in error (on purpose or otherwise). Is it really wise to create an easy path back to these things for a frequent vandal or vanity bio creator? I may be missing a major point, and if so please point it out. BTW, the links to the Sandbox and explanations of policy are great, just not to articles which have been vandalised, in my opinion. Thoughts? Mak emi 03:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that some administrators will block suspicious accounts with summaries like "please contact an administrator for verification purposes" and such. I've made the template {{ unverified user}} that would hopefully be some help. -- Ixfd64 01:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Granted I'm not a fan of these in the first place, but I object to "This is your last warning... if... you will be blocked..." for slightly different reasons: it is sometimes not followed up, and if it is, it is with a temporary block. This usually results in several "last" warnings. It is a lame ultimatum with little credibility. I'm not advocating remedying this by making blocks permanent, of course. -Dan 17:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes, we would see an anonymous user editing a user page. Often, due to the nature of the edits, it is hard to tell whether the user is vandalizing or editing their own user page while not logged in. I made this template for asking users to log in before editing their user page. -- Ixfd64 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been playing with a little template for a specific kind of copyright violation I've seen several instances of: the addition of song lyrics to an article about a band/musician/song/etc. They most often seem to be a good-faith attempt to improve the article, made without a proper understanding of copyright and Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, I first wrote a little blurb (intended to be friendly) for my own use, notifying the editor in question that the lyrics have been removed and pointing them to pages that would help explain why. What I'm wondering now is if this would be something useful for other editors.
As a Wiki-newbie, I defer to those with more wisdom and experience. :) Is this something "worth" a template? And if it is, any input on wording, links, etc., is more than welcome.
The (very beta) version of the template can be found at User:PaperTruths/copyvio-lyrics, and the implementation can be found at User:PaperTruths/White_space#Templates. Thanks for your time! — PaperTruths ( Talk) 08:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've just created this template in response to a recent collateral damage incident with User:202.6.138.34. I haven't created a template before so I'd appreciate any input, including whether we already have a template for this. Thanks TigerShark 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have just created this template to warn new users away from creating nonsense articles. If there is consensus here that it will be useful, I will move it to a permanent template. -- Richard0612 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I will gradually be creating a progressive series of these [see my templates page] [in accordance with your documentation], any help would be appreciated [I'm rather new to this!] -- Richard0612 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made an alternative version of test4. The original test4 could be misleading, as it does not guarantee that the warned vandal will be blocked. This is especially true when no administrators are online. -- Ixfd64 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I know of a way to eliminate the -n warnings while still allowing users to optionally put the page in. It is based on " ParserFunctions." These use system templates for if and other operations, see WP:PF. The code for test will then be:
Thank you for experimenting with on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you will put in the page that was reverted in the parameter, it will display the text, otherwise, it won't. The function will still be displayed in edit mode when it is subst'ed on the page, but it will still work. While it is wikicode, it is inside the warning, so it is not harmful (the warning itself should not be edited anyway). The templates will continue to work as before, but there will be no reason to remember the -n series (which will be converted to redirects), so putting warnings on user talk pages will be easier. Any comments? Polonium 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd been looking around for quite a while, for a policy on User page templates. Having not found one, I'd done a few edits of my own to the templates to try and bring some harmonisation. In the last couple of weeks I'd created this here with a view to bringing everything together. I'd got to the next part of getting ideas and someone pointed me in your direction. Well anyway, is there anyway I can help? Regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to see that we have different groups beginning discussion on cleaning up the warning system. Right now, I am using this system and find it useful:
==Editing Concerns==
#{{subst:test1}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test2}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test3}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test4}} ~~~~
This is how it looks in action: [1]. I particularly like to make it clear to other users in the edit summary which test we are at, i.e. "test 1", "test 2" and so forth. I think it would be great if whatever system develops does something along these lines. It is especially helpful when we run into users who try to blank their warnings. Thanks to y'all for taking initiative in this. - Kukini 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I also occasionally leave a suggestion to others who revert vandalism but forget, or don't know about their ability to warn vandals. My current message is here:
{{subst:User:Kukini/pleasewarnvandals}} -- ~~~~
It looks like this now:
Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [2]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for this, as long as I don't start to get spammed by it every time I give first offenses a warnings freebie.
Also, I'd say the work you did in your userspace was not a waste – your ideas deserve further mention here. Regarding unifying templates, I hope it won't sound like advertising to invite you to weigh in on the idea of combining the named and "unnamed" warning templates at the link I provided above. I think this would combat discrepancies between wording on said templates. --
Omicronpersei8 (
talk) 17:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Kukini's idea of numbering the warnings is a good idea, but, and it's a big but. I don't usually start with test1 warnings. To give a test1 warning for blatant vandalism, is a waste of time IMHO, whereas the wording of test2 and mentioning that it is nonsense is more apt. I do give test1 when it's obviously a mess around, but when it's a serious vandal if they vandalise within 5 mins of a test2 then it's straight to test4. I see vandals all the time ignore no matter how many warning you throw at them, and it's just how fast you can get them to AIV. Omni, having had a couple of hours since I found you lot exist, and a nice bottle of Languedoc, what I might do is continue with my template ideas keep them all on my template pages, and once you see the finalised versions you (the collective you) may take them if you wish. I'm not talking drastic changes for the sake of changes just I would like to see everything along the same lines. Cheers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've spent the last couple of hours trying to work out a way of doing a before and after page for the existing templates, but it'd be helluva alot of work. I certainly don't wish to step on anyones toes here, but I'd certainly be willing to take an active part in this program, and still use my pages I've created to help this program. When a modification is done to the pages what is the protocol here? Alot of the changes I'm seeing are just on syntax. i.e. test2: do not add nonsense whereas test2-n: refrain from adding nonsense. It's a simple example but alot of the changes I'd like to carry out are along these lines. Some of the ideas I have, such as removing the behave template and incorporating it into joke how would I go about these? Cheers for any feedback Khukri ( talk . contribs) 21:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently some users think that usernames with non-latin chars in their names can be blocked for this without discussion. The only evidence I have of this is the relevant clause in Template:Usernameblocked. I left a note on the talk page there, and hope that clause can be removed. +sj + 04:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
—[ admin] Pathoschild 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Names with non- Latin characters: Unfortunately, most of your fellow editors will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts. Many of them will also be additionally burdened, as such names may be displayed for them only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or worse, nonsense or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is usually written in a non-Latin script, please consider transliterating it to avoid confusion, and allow easier access to your talk page by typing your name in the search field or URL bar.
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
See User_talk:193.201.135.244; at the footer of the page is a new idea for a template encouraging anons to create accounts. I would be interested to hear your opinions. -- SunStar Net 11:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I just whipped up a userbox for participants; see {{ User Warning Project}}.
I swear I'll make actual contributions to the project, but that was a pretty quick and easy thing to do. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please use this talk page for any alarm harmonisation ideas. Regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 12:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to see that we have different groups beginning discussion on cleaning up the warning system, although I am not sure I like the idea of warnings being removed. What does that mean? Also, right now, I am using this system and like it:
==Editing Concerns==
#{{subst:test1}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test2}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test3}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test4}} ~~~~
One of the reasons I like it is that it makes warning count easy and thus makes it clear when someone has vandalized enough to merit a block. Let me find an example of how I am doing this in action: [3] What do you think? - Kukini 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
How about making all templates into <div>s or wikitables? This solution has two added values:
M isza 13 10:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What a lot of effort you've put into this!!!!
It looks great; I have to say that I wholeheartedly support your ideas.
Before your date with the wine, I'd suggest that you make the others working on this problem aware of your ideas. I especially like the use of images (and I favor yours to any others I've seen suggested); that will make the warnings seem more serious, and as people are visual learners, after all.
Anyway, let me know if you need me for anything else! :) Srose (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Before we can get any further with hammering out the details listed below, I believe we should obtain some form of concensus, as to the templates structure. Currently there are two ideas on the board
Note: I use the word warnings alot which I realise does not instantly AGF, but for the purposes of this project warnings / messages are interchangeable. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 09:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Levels 0 - 3 & then use S-blocks As per guidelines
Levels 0 - 6 As per tradition
Neutral
Standardise template name syntax
All templates must have same look and feel, if bold text highlights a word in one template, bold in all. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Number of warning categories only have for example warnings 2 - 3. Create the spectrum of warnings adhering to content syntax. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Only pre-approved images to be used, and all to be similar size.
Exceptions? Shared educational IP Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
to recap with Pathos's 0-3 levels it would look something like
Level 0, 1
or
Level 2 warnings
Level 3 warning or S-blocks
S-block3
not used
OK I know Pathos is against the images, but I'm sure he/she can be persuaded ;). Also Pathos just an aesthetic question, would you mind if the border on s-bock three was the same as the other s-blocks. you've got a nice big cross symbol there, room for discussion? I'll trade you one image from above for the red border ;) —
unsigned by
Khukri 15:11, October 26, 2006.
Create Obvious vandalism either ov0 - 6 or vand0 - 6 templates to replace vw and blatant vandal etc. Test warning are exactly for as the name suggests for people carrying out persistant tests, not for deliberate vandalism. Vandalism is vandalism and should be named thus. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Behave warning becomes joke0 and joke --> joke1, funnybut --> joke2, Seriously --> Joke3, create joke 4,5 & 6 then tidied. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
All block templates to be the same colour and format with maybe exceptions of the icon(see above), along the lines of vblock Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
3rr, mos, lang, date, wr, spam, npa, threat need all the levels 0 - 6 including -n's
Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Create copyright level 0 - 6, and remove different names for same offence as per joke and ov. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Some warnings include ==Title==, this should either apply to all or a type of warning, i.e. level 4, or to none at all. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Warnings which include ~~~~ should be removed Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Defban and defwarning -> def0 - 6 Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
AGF is it blockable? If not reword agf3 -> agf2 if so create all agf's Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Add this comment to all templates, to make sure they remain harmonised long after we're finished. <!-- Please do not make any modifications to this template, prior to discussing any changes at the Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings or WP:UW --> Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a good idea to harmonise the templates. I also like the ideas of images. However having templates 0 to 6 for lesser used templates like agf may be a bit of overkill. -- Gurubrahma 10:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this is excellent. Let me know if I can help - and AGF is not blockable. KillerChihuahua ?!? 11:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've created Template:WPUW just for testing purposes, to save having loads of test templates
Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Cheers Avi for the info, looking at what we have then I would think it's very easy to have what we could call guidance messages level 0 - 2, and then for want of a better word rebuking messages 3 - 4, and then the blocks 5 - 6. I'm going to create a new WP:TT page here in the next week, which we can keep track of who's done what and our overall status. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As I can't edit alot of the pages, what I will do is create a page linked to the project page (upload) which will list the text to be cut n pasted and the name of the destination template. Also I would maybe like to s-prot all templates once finished. But is it necessary to have some of the templates fully protected, and others not at all. If we are protecting blocking templates then they should all be protected, but I and many others will have all these templates eventually in our watch lists, and can revert any vandalism on sight. Cheers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Khukri ( talk . contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
==Upcoming template changes==
Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit [[WP:UW|WikiProject user warnings]] and harmonisation discussion [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/templates|pages]] to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards ~~~~
This talk page will be used for suggested Guidelines for our Wikiproject.
I just wanted to show an example of a page that will benefit greatly from our project. 195.93.21.97. There are many warnings given, notices that it's an AOL IP, responses from legit AOL users, and some gibberish inbetween. The headings are inconsistant, and just overall messy.
That is a perfect example of the type of page we can help! The quicker we can get users to join our project, and come up with some guidelines to go by, the quicker we can be helping the editors of wikipedia! -- light darkness 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think that they should be categorized by month, but perhaps subcategorizing them by day might be helpful sometimes. If it's an IP that constantly vandalizes, it would probably be easier to read that way. If someone has a warning under a header with the Article title, it should be moved to a month header instead.
It would also be nice if we made a section for IPs comments, but how this would be "enforced," I don't know.-- Shanel 20:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been working to standardise user warnings layout for a while, and developed a set of unwritten guidelines which were improved over time. I've been meaning to codify these guidelines through my WikiProject on user warnings, but this WikiProject would be better suited towards that goal. (On an unrelated note, the WikiProject name is a bit too specific; are we uninterested in registered vandal talk pages? How about the WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation? :D)
== Warnings ==
, seperate from comments.{{s/wnote}}
should be
subst'd; this template gives quick access to information and tools useful to both admin and non-admin during the administrator intervention process.=== January 2006 ===
.Example:
== Warnings == {{subst:s/wnote}} === January 2005 === # {{test}} # {{test4}} * {{s/block}} # {{test4}} # {{test4}}
The guidelines above call for the use of list syntax. Due to a "feature" in MediaWiki's parsing, line breaks and newlines break list format; all templates are modified to fix this problem as of December 2005. Older warnings will break the list format. // Pathoschild ( admin / talk) 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As has been said elsewhere, I am not sure putting {{ s/wnote}} on the User talk page is a good idea in general; it is like branding. On IP portal pages like AOL, or a particular school, that would be better; as it does not seem as if it is picking on one particular person. However, a registered vandal or a singular IP should not get this, IMO. -- Avi 03:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that we've got a pretty good list of guidelines to follow, should we update the main page with "This is exactly what you should do", and throw a "Suggested Guideline" on the page? I'm just wondering what you all think the next step is. -- light darkness ( talk) 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I regularly remove AOL warnings older than a few days. I would like to add this to the guidelines (under an "AOL" subheading), along with the following explanation.
Any thoughts ? // Pathoschild ( admin / talk) 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this. It encourages vandalism by AOL users. If they want to be worthwhile contributors, they can get an account, and even all out blocks don't affect their ability to read articles. -- M @ r ē ino 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia already seems mighty soft on vandalism; why this push to expunge records of vandalism after 90 days? What problem is it solving? -- A. B. 03:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A side note to this issue - how is keeping the warnings going to work given the current ambivalence over whether or not its kosher to randomly remove things from you talk page? Or is this meant to be a more sane way to track IP vandalism?
Shell
babelfish 08:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm triggered to look at vandals when they hit one of the articles on my watchlist. Being familiar with the topics, it's clear what's vandalism. Then I start looking at all their edits to other articles. I see that a bot has reversed their edit, but often bots just revert to another anon's edit, often vandalistic.
If I look at that anon's edit and it's changing a date from 1924 to 1928, is that vandalistic? Should it be edited out if subsequent editors haven't spotted it? Being an unfamiliar topic, the answer's unclear to me. A quick way to deal with question is to look at the anon's talk page -- if it's full of warnings, I'll edit it out the new date with a comment to the article's other editors to check the date, either in my edit summary [4] or on the talk page. Otherwise, I assume good faith and move on. Some accounts are virtually vandalism only, but the edits are of a low enough frequency that there may be only one warning or puzzled comment ("why did you do that?") in the last 90 days. Likewise, a talk page full of discussions with other editors about articles quickly shows this is probably a good faith editor.
Questions of this sort crop up several times a week when I'm reversing vandalism. It's nice to have the full history.
Subtle, uncaught vandalism such as a slight date or location changes are ultimately worse for Wikipedia's reliablility than the "JOEY is Gay!!!" kind -- at least readers are not unknowing absorbing deliberate misinformation since they just tune out the Joey stuff. -- A. B. 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
At the very least, perhaps when warnings are removed, a blurb could be added to the top of the page indicating that the warnings were trimmed, and that the removed message can be found in the history? -- AbsolutDan (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. I created User:Pathoschild/Template:History to link to the text in the history. For technical reasons, it's impossible to obtain the current or previous revision id of a page.
{{ User:Pathoschild/Template:History}} | Older messages have been archived to the page history. (No revision id specified.) |
{{ User:Pathoschild/Template:History|37559220}} | Older messages have been archived to the page history. |
—[ admin] Pathoschild 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, Sorry I've been a bit quiet the last couple of days, but I'm just planning a trip back to the UK. So I'll be incommunicado, for the next week or so and I'll re-start this around 10th Nov. cheers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 10:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm triggered to look at vandals when they hit one of the articles on my watchlist. Being familiar with the topics, it's clear what's vandalism. Then I start looking at all their edits to other articles. I see that a bot has reversed their edit, but often bots just revert to another anon's edit, often vandalistic.
If I look at that anon's edit and it's changing a date from 1924 to 1928, is that vandalistic? Should it be edited out if subsequent editors haven't spotted it? Being an unfamiliar topic, the answer's unclear to me. A quick way to deal with question is to look at the anon's talk page -- if it's full of warnings, I'll edit it out the new date with a comment to the article's other editors to check the date, either in my edit summary [7] or on the talk page. Otherwise, I assume good faith and move on. Some accounts are virtually vandalism only, but the edits are of a low enough frequency that there may be only one warning or puzzled comment ("why did you do that?") in the last 90 days. Likewise, a talk page full of discussions with other editors about articles quickly shows this is probably a good faith editor.
Questions of this sort crop up several times a week when I'm reversing vandalism. It's nice to have the full history.
Subtle, uncaught vandalism such as a slight date or location changes are ultimately worse for Wikipedia's reliablility than the "JOEY is Gay!!!" kind -- at least readers are not unknowing absorbing deliberate misinformation since they just tune out the Joey stuff. -- A. B. 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
At the very least, perhaps when warnings are removed, a blurb could be added to the top of the page indicating that the warnings were trimmed, and that the removed message can be found in the history? -- AbsolutDan (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. I created User:Pathoschild/Template:History to link to the text in the history. For technical reasons, it's impossible to obtain the current or previous revision id of a page.
{{ User:Pathoschild/Template:History}} | Older messages have been archived to the page history. (No revision id specified.) |
{{ User:Pathoschild/Template:History|37559220}} | Older messages have been archived to the page history. |
—[ admin] Pathoschild 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
OK I've had a first pass at adding all the warnings to the above that we will cover. I've highlighted warnings because I think after we have done this we should look at the other talk page templates i.e welcome, shared IP, etc. This is only a first pass, have a look through and make any mods you see fit. I think we should look to start this next Monday? I've already assigned myself three sets of warnings, take the others as you see fit. Cheers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know a good bot writer? I think it may come in handy that as soon as someone uses an old template even with the redirect, it comes in behind, tidies it then send the user a polite message with a link to the new overview table? I'll have a look round but would appreciate any volunteers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You guys should sound off some of this stuff or just talk to the folks at irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam-t, the wikipedia-spam talk channel. It's full of RC patrollers/vandal fighters, bot builders and seasoned admins all of whom are looking to squash vandals + spam. Being one of them, I drop a ton of user_talk warnings all over the place, and anyone there could have some good insight into this project. Take Thadius856's many unencyclopedic external link warning templates - we've been trying out template stuff too. JoeSmack Talk 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's helluva quiet with all these names that keep getting added. C'mon get stuck in pleeaassssseee! Khukri ( talk . contribs) 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a couple of days ago I ran upon User:John_Reaves/grid - which seems to be a user's individual way of tracking names of warning messages - a similar thing to what we are doing here. It could come in very handy! -- Chuq 07:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Reword delete 0 - 2 to reflect as well as text removal or page blanking, it's to cover deletion of any procedural messages on a page, covers speedy delete, AFD, etc. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Recreation warning 0 - 2 covers spam-warning and recreated Khukri ( talk . contribs) 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Has anybody here created any of the new templates, such as on a temporary page? I would like to help out, and it would be useful to see some of what we are going for. -- kenb215 talk 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding somemore redirects to the overview page, and concerning my deletion proposal on the templates page, about adding the 'deletion of templates' warning to the delete template, I've had no repsonses so tomorrow I'll add them as re-directs. Cheers Khukri ( talk . contribs) 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just added myself as "active" (by accident). I then realized there was also an "interested" section. While I haven't done anything yet, I want to be more involved than "interested" and if I can, enough to be considered "active", so I left myself there. What is there that I can start on? I've had some experience with reorganizing the templates, as I added the {{ spam0}} template, reorganized the spam template nav box, as well as some stuff with getting rid of the -n templates. I just didn't know their was a WikiProject! Let me know what I can do. -- Renesis ( talk) 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've moded the base template to move the image away from the text and to make it look tidier. I've also added a standard text which looking through the overview can be modified to fit most of our new templates. Here's the base template and I've modified the {{ delete}} and {{ vandalism}} from templates to follow it. This is only an example so any ideas please feel free I won't be offended, edit away. Anyway I'm off skiing for a long weekend so my work here is done...... for now. P.S. Renesis, Iced Kola & Pathoschild, you've gone quiet, I need you guys to put these in place, Cheers. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any interest for something like this? Banned users' IPs cannot be blocked indefinitely unless they are on static IPs. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 17:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I was a bit confused by this edit: [10], especially since I can't seem to find the consensus on this talk page, Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Help:Everything or the project page for not including headers in warnings. They seem useful for organizational purposes, and save time we'd have to spend typing a unique header each time we use a warning when only a generic one is really needed. -- W.marsh 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I created the article creation warning templates, and I would appreciate if anyone can review them and make any improvements they think would be good. As for the tpv templates, I should get to them on friday or a bit earlier. // I c e d K o l a 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled into this page by accident more or less. I think the outlines on the template page are very good. They are clearer than many of the current templates. I've been frequently frustrated with the number of times a vandal can strike before a ban is put in place. On the pages I watch, most are vandalized by anonymous users with a long history of vandalism. I look forward to being able to use this template structure, which will result in faster bans for blatant vandals in my opinion. Keep up the good work. Thanks, Dan Slotman 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the remaining warnings on the overview page, the warning for releasing another editors personal info and legal threats. IMHO these are warnings that one cannot assume good faith with, they are done with intention and usually for malicious reasons. My idea is that we create a nuclear level of warnings, of a one warning and then a blocked. Whaddya think? Khukri ( talk . contribs) 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Legal threats are frequently malicious, but not always. I suggest having a level 2 warning while starting at level 3 when appropriate. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-12-19 01:02Z
A quick look through Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview made me discover we're not including auto-inserting signatures into the warnings. Since they are mostly made as <div>s or wikitables, a signature dangling below it won't look good. So, maybe we should embed them inside the table/div? М иша 13 10:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Having signatures embedded, and I suppose the whole div/table thing, makes the warnings very brittle. There should be a way to add more text, at least an extra parameter. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-12-19 01:00Z
OK, we need to think carefully about this, I'm willing to wait until we have all the templates for review before we take a decision on this one. I understand the problem but the main reason I took on the work here was to see harmony amongst all templates. For continuing my plans of world domination, after this project I'm most probably going to start looking at all other templates, i.e welcome messages, edit summary, etc and whatever we put into place here I feel should be extended to all templates.
So anyone else working here, roll up roll up, all ideas accepted. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think all level 2 should have the "!" in the triangle symbol and all level 3 to have the stop hand symbol. Someone just scrolling through a talk page will be alerted to the warning if they see a symbol like that. T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 16:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Incase anyone didn't see them this is where we looked at the images. I don't want to re-initiate the whole discussion at this late stage, but am sure we can quickly look at any other ideas, if they're mentioned quickly. Otherwise we'll always be stuck in the same place, as new editors come onboard. Khukri ( talk . contribs) 08:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the discussion about level 3, I probably missed it. Sorry if I bring a point that has already been discussed.
I have some concerns about the wording of the level3 template: "The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked.". An editor that gets the level3 template is most probably a vandal and might see it as a challenge "you don't dare doing that again". Most of RC changes patrollers however don't have admin tools and can't issue blocks. I think a better wording would be that the next time the user will be reported to an admin for measures. a bit like "The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be reported to the administrative group and may be blocked". -- lucasbfr talk 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Seem to also cover NOR - suggest we rename those to nor0, nor1, as opposed to unsourced0, unsourced1 etc. Easier to remember and faster to type. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua ?!? 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, sorry did not even know this Wikiproject existed.
I thought I would tell you guys three things that I am doing at the moment with CSD warning templates, and see you have any comments or issues.
I suppose there might be some big issues with the final point, considering one of the Goals on this project is to have NO HEADINGS. But maybe you might want to consider the solution mentioned above - allow best of both worlds. Cheers Lethaniol 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay will get to it, also would like to help out, will add my name to the list, and help out in new year cheers Lethaniol 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Using some fancy template syntax, I have managed to enrich some existing projects with the following features:
{{{2}}}
- this will be embedded within the message box right after the standard text.{{...|sig=n}}
, it will not be inserted.All this is done with this piece of code:
{{{2|}}} {{subst:<includeonly></includeonly>#ifeq:{{{sig}}}|n| |~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~}}
Also, we're switching the design from <div>s to wikitables. This has few advantages, including that the images will not "spill" out of the message boxes if the text is very short. Few existing projects have already been converted to the new scheme. You can see a demo on User:Khukri/templates - when creating new templates series, please copy that code (in edit-mode, not by subst:'ing). Thank you, М иша 13 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Is this going to add a lot of markup when substituted? (I guess it's really a missing feature in MediaWiki that you can't "fully transclude and remove all template markup".) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-12-19 22:36Z
Hi. I've read that it's okay to remove warnings from your own talk page, but have re-discovered what I thought to be the rule, so my question is, when should a template like Template:Removewarn (is there any other like it?) be used, if at all? THanks. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just bitten for the first time for leaving an edit summaries reminder on a fellow Wikipedian. Can't say I'm surprised, for I knew something like this would happen. I should've listened more to my gut feelings; the current template may look like a warning to some, even though it should never rise to that level, and while I understand it's guidelines and believe it should be done etc, some people just don't see the point, and until they do, no amount of pleading will change their perspective. I don't know what the solution is. Xiner ( talk, email) 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think {{ test}} should redirect to {{ test0}} like it says in the table, it should go to test1, there'll be less confusion among editors. -- WikiSlasher 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There are only 5 more templates to be taken, so if you have a spare 20 mins please help yourselves.
The next step, once all of the template pages are completed, we will leave the pages on review for a couple of weeks, putting a banner ad on the project page announcing they are for review and any comments are to be left on the talk page and we will do any modifications. I suggest what with Chrimbo and new year, we leave the review period until the 2nd week of January, thoughts please?
After that will be to set an implementation day, we are lucky enough to have a number of admins on the interested and active list. A fair few of our templates are fully protected, so I suggest the day before implementation you (the admins amongst us) change all templates from fully to semi protected so editors like myself can do some of the work. Then we change over all in the quickest possible time including the redirects. Also I recommend that all of us involved meet up on an IRC channel prior to put everything into place to hammer out any details. So when do we go for it? I'm ok most days and I suggest a morning UTC so we can get all of the European and American editors in the same place at the same time at a reasonable hour, and any date except the 21st Jan as it my birthday, and I will be drinking at a rugby match somewhere! Khukri ( talk . contribs) 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There's another project looking at the layout of warnings, who as far as I can see have a similar remit to us. I left a message with them a couple of weeks back with no responses, but I can see no reason why we don't merge their project into ours. Any thought please? Khukri ( talk . contribs) 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Pathos I know you are involved heavily in both projects. I'm having a look round at your mandate here, and the mandate of the revitalised User Warnings Project and there is alot of synergy and think we can pool our resources. Any thoughts on a merge of projects and resources? Regards Khukri ( talk . contribs) 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed on the overview page that the page move templates are listed with question marks at the bottom of the first redirect table. Is there a reason that they haven't been moved to the main section? It seems as if it could be included easily, by adding this line to the end:
Page moves | {{ move0}} | {{ move1}} | {{ move2}} | {{ move3}} | Yes | Unassigned | Not started |
---|
-- kenb215 talk 23:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm really not sure where to ask this question, but here goes. I'm involved with Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which lists and evaluates non-English pages before they are PROD'ed, speedied, or put up for AfD. As part of that work, we warn the posters of the non-English content, using {{subst:UE}}. Now, that template already has one optional parameter, to list the name of the article posted. But I would really like there to be another such parameter, where we could specify the language edition Wikipedia of the content. That could produce a message encouraging the user to contribute to that specific language Wikipedia. Basically, I'm thinking something like {{subst:UE|Article|ru.wikipedia.org}}. At PNT, users are already identifying language-of-content, and I really think this modification could be helpful. How/where do I propose this template modification? Thanks for the assistance. -- Fsotrain 09 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
When should we start transferring the templates on the subpages to their new pages? T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay-I'm not that good at parser functions, but from looking at the template, I was able to remove one function that was in the template twice. However, the article function doesn't seem to working the way that the usage stated, and the way it should be if you look at which function number it is. Help is needed. T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the usage template, which is not included in transclusioning, can sometimes differ from the actual usage, like the block templates. So, I think that the actual usage template should be subst'd on the template page, and then fixed to conform with the template it's talking about. T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 18:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
On the overview page, when it lists where to redirect, what do the new sections with the number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mean? T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind TeckWiz, but I copied your post over from my talk page, as it's quite a pertinant discussion, and needs the whole projects input.
Since we have separated test templates and vandalism templates, I don't see why we should have a vandalism level 0. If you can't give it above a 0, it's really a test, not vandalism, as current guidelines state to start at level 2 for nonsense and such. I personally don't even think there should be a vand1, but other users do so it should stay. I think there should be no level 0 for other types of vandalism also, like blanking. T e ckWiz Talk Contribs @ 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
All of this work is admirable, but there is something that is going to cause massive problems when this is implemented, and may even cause all of these templates to be rolled back: The proposed list has the {{ test0}}, {{ test1}}, {{ test2}}, {{ test3}} and {{ block}} scale, but it eliminates the {{ test4}} level, making it equal to a current {{ test5}}. Administrators who don't RC patrol, vandal patrollers coming back from wikibreaks, or even well-informed users already know that {{ test4}} means final warning. Any attempts to change that are going to go against a deeply engraved grain, and may meet considerable resistance. It would be much easier to just keep {{ test4}} and have the rest of the changes adjust to having one more level. Tito xd( ?!?) 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, we can just shift all the levels up one; for example the current test0 is test1, test1 is test2, test2 is test3, etc. I'm only suggesting, as a 1 -> 4 system is easier to remember than a 0 -> 3 system (at least to me). - 210 physicq ( c) 00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem of level changing (agreeing with Tixtoxd that changing from the levels we're all used to will create mistakes and have huge pushback), plus the difficult implementation problems, are solved if the new templates are all installed at new names. That way the old ones can be slowly deprecated over time, as the migration process may take months, given number of people, not to mention programs, used to them. Redirecting existing testN templates to other existing testN templates is asking for trouble. We might use creativity to come up with new pithy names, or use a new common prefix, such as "uw-". — Quarl ( talk) 2006-12-29 23:03Z