This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It occurs to me that the current version of {{Wr}} is pretty benign (ending with a "Thanks", no stop sign icon), especially considering that it's meant to be a last warning to the user before they get banned. Perhaps the current version could get moved down to a "level 3" and a more severe one created that makes sure the vandal knows that they'll get blocked if they do it once more could be created? Molimo 03:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I added {{Wr2}} and put them into the main table at levels 2 and 4 respectively. Also, I created and added the {{Not censored}} and {{Not censored 2}} templates because of the increasing amount of misguided censorship of swear words and such I've been noticing. –Tifego(t)00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, the censorship ones will be highly useful. JoshuaZ 05:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I recently encountered the opposite situation, so I created the milder {{Wr0}} in the good faith column. Feezo(Talk) 05:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I Don't Think Removing Warnings Is enough to ban somebody. The Best we could get and still get consensous is that it is "Genrally Discoraged/Prohibited" I tried to Make a policy Just for Wikipedia:Removing warnings Yet Manny people do not feel it should be against policy. Their is no wide acceptance even thou I feel we should block them if they repeat removing warnings several times. I think the current policy is just that you Should not remove warnings. See also Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette--E-Bod 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A while back there was discussion about making the -n versions of the test/spam/etc templates redundant by having an optional parameter to the template. Am I right in thinking this was ultimately rejected because it used qif? If so there is now build in m:ParserFunctions available, so I wondered if it would now be possible to re-write the templates with this? Petros471 11:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
test vs anon vandal
I see the {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test2a}} etc. series of templates used on anonymous vandals instead of {{anon vandal}} all the time. Is the overlap in the templates due to the fact that {{test}} is only to be used on registered users or is it up to the discretion of the RC patroller to use anon vandal instead? savidan(talk)(e@) 08:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Many Wikipedians prefer the "test" templates for pretty much *all* vandalism, for reasons that have been discussed and debated elsewhere. (I can't easily give you a pointer, sorry).--Srleffler 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Behave
I like Behave better than joke becose Behave seems more fiendly. I would sugest you add Template:Behave-n (it took me a while to find and this might same other's the trouble (ok the problem wasn't finding it the problem was i asumed it it existed it would be included in the project page))--E-Bod 23:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Request made already--E-Bod 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Spelling error
Hey, I'm trying to fix this template, there's a spelling error in it. Can someone tell me where to go to fix it?
You could click on this if you wanted to, PS, by {{}}ing the template, you added this page to "Category:AOl Denial of Service Vandals", which is of course how I found your question--64.12.116.131 03:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the addition of Template:vandalism watch and Template:repeat vandal to this page. They seem as appropriate as the SharedIP warning. But I can't quite figure out where in the table they might fit. I've tentatively added them to the "Others" line/"Blocked" column. Rossami(talk) 02:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand why Template:TestTemplates and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace should stay separate. The transclusion is an elegant way to keep the page maintainable. But there seems to be a great deal of overlap between the Talk pages. Personally, I am confused which talk page should be used for which topics. I recommend merging the Talk pages (only) and redirecting one to the other. Rossami(talk) 06:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You should either Merge the talk pages or have the two talk pages link to each other in a {{Notice}} on the Top of the page--E-Bod 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Merger completed. Rossami(talk) 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
New template proposal
I have created a new template for users making empty or near-empty articles (deletable under {{db-nocontent}}). I've written something to this effect on several occasions, and thought a template would come in handy. It's currently at User:Goldom/test-content, but I'd like to move it to a real template page if others think its any good. Comments? -Goldom‽‽‽⁂ 02:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, but I don't think it is needed. There is already Template:AFDNote, and Template:AFDWarning, for a regular AFD. I don't see the point in warning a person for a speedy delete. Most likely the person isn't online then and will only see the message after the article has been deleted. And if they are online then there is a good chance that they would see the notice on the page they (probably) just created. If so, they will know they can use a hangon because it says so in the speedy delete tag. In rare situations it would help, but most of the time it would just lead to confusion. Jon513 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be no test-templates available for users who consistently post advertising information to Wikipedia. I had to improvise a level-3 warning to a user who was creating multiple advertising pages with the same content (copied from the companies' websites), the second one created after a copyvio warning, because no templates existed. (Both pages are now tagged for speedy deletion). Is this enough of a problem that new templates are needed? --Ais523 09:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If they do it often enough I usually just post on the admin noticeboard recommending a block. Spammers make me mad. --Liface 22:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is in a bunch of unrelated categories
Is there any way to display the templates without adding the page to the relevant categories (Category:Requests for unblock etc) without substing them all and doing it manually? --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
we definnatly don't want to subst them. We want to see what the template is currently not a month or year ago! Jon513 11:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace is a list of commonly used templates. Many of these add the page to a catagory that is inappropiate. The templates cannot be subst'ed because we want to show the current template not one from a month or year ago. Is there any way to remove the catagories? Jon513 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any redirects on this page.
How about this.
Templates should moved until it is Properly named
Not a Properly named template redirecting to the original
Only the Correctly named one goes onto this page.
Old Version will redirect to the new ones. On the talk page of each template we should list the other templates that redirect to them in case people want to use them
However only the correctly named one should be on this page.
Please don't remove redirects on the test templates. They are there for a reason. NPA2 is there so that users can apply a level version of an attack template on pages and it redirects to an older template created before the numbering system was introduced. Redirects on that page are always kept because hundreds of users use them all the time. We cannot expect them every day to go to the TT page and check what redirects where today having been changed by someone yesterday. Leave the redirects alone. They are necessary. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Thanks for reverting me. It's Just that {{Npa2}} linked to {{Npa}} and that template Already Existed. You are right. At the time i was thinking Why give somebody a NPA and then a NPA2 if they are the same message I didn't think we wanted redundant messages. If their is no NPA2 people would use NPA3 or NPA. I will not do that again. Thanks for Clarifying this to me.--E-Bod 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
PS my reply was to the earlier [1] but we had an edit conflict.--E-Bod 17:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
With this in mind I would not have made the edit in the first place. --E-Bod 17:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. So my opinion now is that we should move {{No personal attacks}} and {{Attack}} to {{npa}} and {{npa2}}. Remove the links from the test templates, but leave the redirect on {{No personal attacks}} and {{Attack}} so old messages are not destroyed.
I did not realize they linked to separate templates when i removed the link. I though it was redundant to Npa not attack.--E-Bod 17:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The above was spell checked--E-Bod 21:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC) End coppy.
I have created a new template for users making empty or near-empty articles (deletable under {{db-nocontent}}). I've written something to this effect on several occasions, and thought a template would come in handy. It's currently at User:Goldom/test-content, but I'd like to move it to a real template page if others think its any good. Comments? -Goldom‽‽‽⁂
I like it. In fact, I think we should have warning templates for each of the speedy delete criteria. --Mr. LeftyTalk to me! 20:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it too. I have some minor suggestions: Instead of "marked for deletion" make it "marked for speedy deletion" with "speedy deletion" a piped link to WP:CSD. Also, instead of "you created at [[{{{1}}}]]" , make it "you created, [[{{{1}}}]],". The at sounds awkward to me. Suggested names: Template:dbnocontent-warn or Template:dbempty-warn (similar to {{nn-warn}}) and then each csd criteria template can follow the same naming convention--Fuhghettaboutit 22:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
New template for copyrights
I'm not sure if this message belongs here or WP:UW (where I've been inactive) but anyways, here goes: With reference to issues such as these, it may be better to have a template for copyright infringement - text. Any ideas? Can someone do the honours as well? TIA, --Gurubrahma 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
What parameters are needed that are not already covered by {{nothanks}}?--Fuhghettaboutit 15:11, 22 June 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 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Commented on the template's Talk page. Rossami(talk) 22:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have created several user warning templates based on the standard test templates that are for use as warnings for inappropriate page creation. These templates included {{test2article-n}}, {{test3article}}, {{test3article-n}}, {{test4article}}, and {{test4article-n}}. Please note that I did not create test1 templates or a nonspecific test2 template of this nature because the standard cooresponding test templates are appropriate as warnings for inappropriate article creation.--Conrad DevonshireTalk 08:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a first level {{test-article-n}} is needed, and, in fact, a personal template I already use is exactly to provide a first level warning for inappropriate page creation. I maintain it here, and it has text as follows:
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the nonsense article [[:{{{1}}}]]. Your test worked, and has been or will soon be 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.
The thing is, {{test-n}} isn't right for two reasons. First, "Thank you for experimenting with the page [[:{{{1}}}]] on Wikipedia" implies that the page was preexisting, and second, because it states the page has been already reverted or removed, when the inappropriate page is often not yet deleted at the time of warning if you have tagged it with a db-nonsense. The second line also doesn't work because the page will never be "reverted," only removed. As first level warnings are used more often than higher level, and test-n doesn't appear to fit the bill, something not too different from above seems necessary.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling someone a vandal
Calling someone a vandal is wrong. Therefore templates such as Template: test3 which calls you a vandal is wrong. Such a template encourages harassment by those inclined to do that sort of thing. --Chuck Marean 17:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
image1/image2 templates broken?
I noticed that with image1 and image2, the signatures get put in a box unlike every other warning template as so:
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test of inserting inappropriate images into an article 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.
-- signature would be here
Please refrain from adding images into articles where the intent is to provoke, offend, or push a POV agenda. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
-- signature would be here
I'm not knowledgeable enough about how templates work to fix it. Can somebody else look into it? -- Gogo Dodo 05:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Template requesting fair use rationale for an image
Is there a template that you can use to ask somebody who uploaded a fair use image to provide rationale for the image on its description page? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
New template
I've created a new template Template:Firstarticle and listed it on this page. It's intended for use when a new user creates an article which is then marked for speedy deletion. The idea is that the template is placed on the new user's talk page, both to inform them and to encourage them to create more new articles which conform to the criteria. I made it because I realise how it must affect new users when their first contribution is delted, and I know for a fact that many users leave immediately because of such an experience. I hope this helps wikipedia - let me know what you think Martinp23 15:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Content/behavior warnings?
Can someone tell me whether: (a) a new template ought to be developed; or (b) which template already fits -- the following case? It's an edit-content war where a single user contintally reverts, every day (taking care not to violate 3RR) _and_ refuses to discuss his edits, despite repeated requests on his talk page? One "advocate" suggested that with refusing to discuss, this might be considered vandalism. Any other ideas? Anything here fit? Or do we need a new one? Thanks. -- Sholom 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case, it is still a 3RR violation. WP:3RR states that "In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." This line addresses "letter vs. spirit" of the law issues. Be clear when applying to an admin that this is the part of 3RR you are referring to when listing the violation, and expect to have to provide evidence that this is indeed an excessive case. BigNate37T·C 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thing you may do is list it (name escapes me at the moment) to have other users take a look at the situation and essentially get a broader perspective. BigNate37T·C 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with above - the 3RR rule still applies, WP:3RR also states "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement... It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. " I would think a new template isn't warranted --Trödel 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a template directed toward users who overuse the "minor edit" checkbox (Template:minor), but I have not seen one for users who mark minor edits as major. Could one be created? --Gray Porpoise 01:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when they are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'."
Yes, just like that. --Gray Porpoise 10:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone have any objections to this? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you could change the {{minor}} template to cover both situations, i.e. overuse or underuse of minor edits. Something to the effect of:
Remember to mark your edits as minor when they are, and only when they are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." Whether marking major edits as minor or failing to mark minor edits, it is counterproductive to the project.
That would do it, though my version could benefit from a better description of why improper use is bad. BigNate37T·C 16:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Remember to mark your edits as minor when, but only when, they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one, or vice versa, is condsidered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'.
Nicely done, it covers both situations and reads well. BigNate37T·C 17:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Rick Block. I just have one question: Why is the "m" at the beginning of "minor" in boldface on the template? --Gray Porpoise 22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Misinformation template?
I've seen a fair amount of misinformation vandalism. test2 seems OK for blatant cases but is there one that is more appropriate when the change is at least plausible, but no source is provided? (The particular situation involves changing population and demographic statistics for countries and US states.) If there is not an appropriate template, I propose creating a level-one warning template for reminding users to provide a source for numerical and statistical data. Gimmetrow 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought of this as an OR issue. It seems to me either the editor has a source (and didn't provide it), or the editor is vandalizing the numbers. I think {{needsource}} will work for now. Gimmetrow 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk page headers
Here's a suggested template. I don't know the politics of creating a template so here's my suggestion.
<div id="shortcut" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 0em 1em 0em 1em; text-align: center; padding:5px; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
''Welcome to my talk page. Please be civil at all times. Click the + when starting new topics.
Thank you.''
</div>
----
Welcome to my talk page. Please be civil at all times. Click the + when starting new topics. Thank you.
The table of contents includes an unintended header at "Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia". This is from the {{nothanks-drm}} template. Other templates that generate the "==" header cause a ToC entry too; see {{idw-pui}}, for example. Is there a way to fix this? Mike Christie 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed these. Moving the header line to be the first line of the template apparently inhibits the heading processing if the template is used within a table entry. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I just use the test6 template for this since spam is a form of vandalism. If you really feel it needs to have another template go ahead and make one. It would should be easy to use using the test6 template as a template (bad choice of words I know). JoshuaZ 01:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to be a bit friendlier to well-meaning new users, who may add links to their own website, etc. I created a {{welcomespam}} based on {{welcomepov}}. I am not quite sure, however, of the syntax needed to add it to the table. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, as we do it, shouldn't you put it in the
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one please do so on the current talk page.
It occurs to me that the current version of {{Wr}} is pretty benign (ending with a "Thanks" no stop sign icon) especially considering that it's meant to be a last warning to the user before they get banned. Perhaps the current version could get moved down to a "level 3" and a more severe one created that makes sure the vandal knows that they'll get blocked if they do it once more could be created? Molimo 03:20 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I added {{Wr2}} and put them into the main table at levels 2 and 4 respectively. Also I created and added the {{Not censored}} and {{Not censored 2}} templates because of the increasing amount of misguided censorship of swear words and such I've been noticing. –Tifego(t)00:46 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks the censorship ones will be highly useful. JoshuaZ 05:37 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I recently encountered the opposite situation so I created the milder {{Wr0}} in the good faith column. Feezo(Talk) 05:53 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I Don't Think Removing Warnings Is enough to ban somebody. The Best we could get and still get consensous is that it is "Genrally Discoraged/Prohibited" I tried to Make a policy Just for Wikipedia:Removing warnings Yet Manny people do not feel it should be against policy. Their is no wide acceptance even thou I feel we should block them if they repeat removing warnings several times. I think the current policy is just that you Should not remove warnings. See also Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette--E-Bod 21:20 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A while back there was discussion about making the -n versions of the test/spam/etc templates redundant by having an optional parameter to the template. Am I right in thinking this was ultimately rejected because it used qif? If so there is now build in m:ParserFunctions available so I wondered if it would now be possible to re-write the templates with this? Petros471 11:06 18 April 2006 (UTC)
test vs anon vandal
I see the {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test2a}} etc. series of templates used on anonymous vandals instead of {{anon vandal}} all the time. Is the overlap in the templates due to the fact that {{test}} is only to be used on registered users or is it up to the discretion of the RC patroller to use anon vandal instead? savidan(talk)(e@) 08:47 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Many Wikipedians prefer the "test" templates for pretty much *all* vandalism for reasons that have been discussed and debated elsewhere. (I can't easily give you a pointer sorry).--Srleffler 21:51 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Behave
I like Behave better than joke becose Behave seems more fiendly. I would sugest you add Template:Behave-n (it took me a while to find and this might same other's the trouble (ok the problem wasn't finding it the problem was i asumed it it existed it would be included in the project page))--E-Bod 23:57 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Request made already--E-Bod 21:21 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Spelling error
Hey I'm trying to fix this template there's a spelling error in it. Can someone tell me where to go to fix it?
You could click on this if you wanted to PS by {{}}ing the template you added this page to "Category:AOl Denial of Service Vandals" which is of course how I found your question--64.12.116.131 03:48 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the addition of Template:vandalism watch and Template:repeat vandal to this page. They seem as appropriate as the SharedIP warning. But I can't quite figure out where in the table they might fit. I've tentatively added them to the "Others" line/"Blocked" column. Rossami(talk) 02:07 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand why Template:TestTemplates and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace should stay separate. The transclusion is an elegant way to keep the page maintainable. But there seems to be a great deal of overlap between the Talk pages. Personally I am confused which talk page should be used for which topics. I recommend merging the Talk pages (only) and redirecting one to the other. Rossami(talk) 06:44 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You should either Merge the talk pages or have the two talk pages link to each other in a {{Notice}} on the Top of the page--E-Bod 23:38 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Merger completed. Rossami(talk) 00:57 22 June 2006 (UTC)
New template proposal
I have created a new template for users making empty or near-empty articles (deletable under {{db-nocontent}}). I've written something to this effect on several occasions and thought a template would come in handy. It's currently at User:Goldom/test-content but I'd like to move it to a real template page if others think its any good. Comments? -Goldom‽‽‽⁂ 02:21 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Good idea but I don't think it is needed. There is already Template:AFDNote and Template:AFDWarning for a regular AFD. I don't see the point in warning a person for a speedy delete. Most likely the person isn't online then and will only see the message after the article has been deleted. And if they are online then there is a good chance that they would see the notice on the page they (probably) just created. If so they will know they can use a hangon because it says so in the speedy delete tag. In rare situations it would help but most of the time it would just lead to confusion. Jon513 21:35 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be no test-templates available for users who consistently post advertising information to Wikipedia. I had to improvise a level-3 warning to a user who was creating multiple advertising pages with the same content (copied from the companies' websites) the second one created after a copyvio warning because no templates existed. (Both pages are now tagged for speedy deletion). Is this enough of a problem that new templates are needed? --Ais523 09:54 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If they do it often enough I usually just post on the admin noticeboard recommending a block. Spammers make me mad. --Liface 22:27 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is in a bunch of unrelated categories
Is there any way to display the templates without adding the page to the relevant categories (Category:Requests for unblock etc) without substing them all and doing it manually? --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:10 8 June 2006 (UTC)
we definnatly don't want to subst them. We want to see what the template is currently not a month or year ago! Jon513 11:39 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace is a list of commonly used templates. Many of these add the page to a catagory that is inappropiate. The templates cannot be subst'ed because we want to show the current template not one from a month or year ago. Is there any way to remove the catagories? Jon513 15:44 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any redirects on this page.
How about this.
Templates should moved until it is Properly named
Not a Properly named template redirecting to the original
Only the Correctly named one goes onto this page.
Old Version will redirect to the new ones. On the talk page of each template we should list the other templates that redirect to them in case people want to use them
However only the correctly named one should be on this page.
Please don't remove redirects on the test templates. They are there for a reason. NPA2 is there so that users can apply a level version of an attack template on pages and it redirects to an older template created before the numbering system was introduced. Redirects on that page are always kept because hundreds of users use them all the time. We cannot expect them every day to go to the TT page and check what redirects where today having been changed by someone yesterday. Leave the redirects alone. They are necessary. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:34 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Thanks for reverting me. It's Just that {{Npa2}} linked to {{Npa}} and that template Already Existed. You are right. At the time i was thinking Why give somebody a NPA and then a NPA2 if they are the same message I didn't think we wanted redundant messages. If their is no NPA2 people would use NPA3 or NPA. I will not do that again. Thanks for Clarifying this to me.--E-Bod 17:44 18 June 2006 (UTC)
PS my reply was to the earlier [2] but we had an edit conflict.--E-Bod 17:46 18 June 2006 (UTC)
With this in mind I would not have made the edit in the first place. --E-Bod 17:56 18 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. So my opinion now is that we should move {{No personal attacks}} and {{Attack}} to {{npa}} and {{npa2}}. Remove the links from the test templates but leave the redirect on {{No personal attacks}} and {{Attack}} so old messages are not destroyed.
I did not realize they linked to separate templates when i removed the link. I though it was redundant to Npa not attack.--E-Bod 17:56 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The above was spell checked--E-Bod 21:36 19 June 2006 (UTC) End coppy.
I have created a new template for users making empty or near-empty articles (deletable under {{db-nocontent}}). I've written something to this effect on several occasions and thought a template would come in handy. It's currently at User:Goldom/test-content but I'd like to move it to a real template page if others think its any good. Comments? -Goldom‽‽‽⁂
I like it. In fact I think we should have warning templates for each of the speedy delete criteria. --Mr. LeftyTalk to me! 20:32 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it too. I have some minor suggestions: Instead of "marked for deletion" make it "marked for speedy deletion" with "speedy deletion" a piped link to WP:CSD. Also instead of "you created at [[{{{1}}}]]" make it "you created [[{{{1}}}]]". The at sounds awkward to me. Suggested names: Template:dbnocontent-warn or Template:dbempty-warn (similar to {{nn-warn}}) and then each csd criteria template can follow the same naming convention--Fuhghettaboutit 22:37 21 June 2006 (UTC)
New template for copyrights
I'm not sure if this message belongs here or WP:UW (where I've been inactive) but anyways here goes: With reference to issues such as these it may be better to have a template for copyright infringement - text. Any ideas? Can someone do the honours as well? TIA --Gurubrahma 14:52 22 June 2006 (UTC)
What parameters are needed that are not already covered by {{nothanks}}?--Fuhghettaboutit 15:11 22 June 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 14:31 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Commented on the template's Talk page. Rossami(talk) 22:57 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have created several user warning templates based on the standard test templates that are for use as warnings for inappropriate page creation. These templates included {{test2article-n}} {{test3article}} {{test3article-n}} {{test4article}} and {{test4article-n}}. Please note that I did not create test1 templates or a nonspecific test2 template of this nature because the standard cooresponding test templates are appropriate as warnings for inappropriate article creation.--Conrad DevonshireTalk 08:34 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a first level {{test-article-n}} is needed and in fact a personal template I already use is exactly to provide a first level warning for inappropriate page creation. I maintain it here and it has text as follows:
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the nonsense article [[:{{{1}}}]]. Your test worked and has been or will soon be 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.
The thing is {{test-n}} isn't right for two reasons. First "Thank you for experimenting with the page [[:{{{1}}}]] on Wikipedia" implies that the page was preexisting and second because it states the page has been already reverted or removed when the inappropriate page is often not yet deleted at the time of warning if you have tagged it with a db-nonsense. The second line also doesn't work because the page will never be "reverted" only removed. As first level warnings are used more often than higher level and test-n doesn't appear to fit the bill something not too different from above seems necessary.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:15 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling someone a vandal
Calling someone a vandal is wrong. Therefore templates such as Template: test3 which calls you a vandal is wrong. Such a template encourages harassment by those inclined to do that sort of thing. --Chuck Marean 17:13 9 July 2006 (UTC)
image1/image2 templates broken?
I noticed that with image1 and image2 the signatures get put in a box unlike every other warning template as so:
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test of inserting inappropriate images into an article 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.
-- signature would be here
Please refrain from adding images into articles where the intent is to provoke offend or push a POV agenda. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment use the sandbox. Thank you.
-- signature would be here
I'm not knowledgeable enough about how templates work to fix it. Can somebody else look into it? -- Gogo Dodo 05:57 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Template requesting fair use rationale for an image
Is there a template that you can use to ask somebody who uploaded a fair use image to provide rationale for the image on its description page? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:11 16 July 2006 (UTC)
New template
I've created a new template Template:Firstarticle and listed it on this page. It's intended for use when a new user creates an article which is then marked for speedy deletion. The idea is that the template is placed on the new user's talk page both to inform them and to encourage them to create more new articles which conform to the criteria. I made it because I realise how it must affect new users when their first contribution is delted and I know for a fact that many users leave immediately because of such an experience. I hope this helps wikipedia - let me know what you think Martinp23 15:15 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Content/behavior warnings?
Can someone tell me whether: (a) a new template ought to be developed; or (b) which template already fits -- the following case? It's an edit-content war where a single user contintally reverts every day (taking care not to violate 3RR) _and_ refuses to discuss his edits despite repeated requests on his talk page? One "advocate" suggested that with refusing to discuss this might be considered vandalism. Any other ideas? Anything here fit? Or do we need a new one? Thanks. -- Sholom 16:50 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case it is still a 3RR violation. WP:3RR states that "In excessive cases people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." This line addresses "letter vs. spirit" of the law issues. Be clear when applying to an admin that this is the part of 3RR you are referring to when listing the violation and expect to have to provide evidence that this is indeed an excessive case. BigNate37T·C 17:28 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thing you may do is list it (name escapes me at the moment) to have other users take a look at the situation and essentially get a broader perspective. BigNate37T·C 17:30 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with above - the 3RR rule still applies WP:3RR also states "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement... It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. " I would think a new template isn't warranted --Trödel 18:01 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a template directed toward users who overuse the "minor edit" checkbox (Template:minor) but I have not seen one for users who mark minor edits as major. Could one be created? --Gray Porpoise 01:43 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when they are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'."
Yes just like that. --Gray Porpoise 10:57 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone have any objections to this? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:46 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you could change the {{minor}} template to cover both situations i.e. overuse or underuse of minor edits. Something to the effect of:
Remember to mark your edits as minor when they are and only when they are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." Whether marking major edits as minor or failing to mark minor edits it is counterproductive to the project.
That would do it though my version could benefit from a better description of why improper use is bad. BigNate37T·C 16:15 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Remember to mark your edits as minor when but only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one or vice versa is condsidered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'.
Nicely done it covers both situations and reads well. BigNate37T·C 17:42 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Rick Block. I just have one question: Why is the "m" at the beginning of "minor" in boldface on the template? --Gray Porpoise 22:17 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Misinformation template?
I've seen a fair amount of misinformation vandalism. test2 seems OK for blatant cases but is there one that is more appropriate when the change is at least plausible but no source is provided? (The particular situation involves changing population and demographic statistics for countries and US states.) If there is not an appropriate template I propose creating a level-one warning template for reminding users to provide a source for numerical and statistical data. Gimmetrow 15:22 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought of this as an OR issue. It seems to me either the editor has a source (and didn't provide it) or the editor is vandalizing the numbers. I think {{needsource}} will work for now. Gimmetrow 22:33 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk page headers
Here's a suggested template. I don't know the politics of creating a template so here's my suggestion.
<div id="shortcut" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 0em 1em 0em 1em; text-align: center; padding:5px; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
''Welcome to my talk page. Please be civil at all times. Click the + when starting new topics.
Thank you.''
</div>
----
Welcome to my talk page. Please be civil at all times. Click the + when starting new topics. Thank you.
The table of contents includes an unintended header at "Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia". This is from the {{nothanks-drm}} template. Other templates that generate the "==" header cause a ToC entry too; see {{idw-pui}} for example. Is there a way to fix this? Mike Christie 15:24 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed these. Moving the header line to be the first line of the template apparently inhibits the heading processing if the template is used within a table entry. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:55 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I just use the test6 template for this since spam is a form of vandalism. If you really feel it needs to have another template go ahead and make one. It would should be easy to use using the test6 template as a template (bad choice of words I know). JoshuaZ 01:40 15 September 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to be a bit friendlier to well-meaning new users who may add links to their own website etc. I created a {{welcomespam}} based on {{welcomepov}}. I am not quite sure however of the syntax needed to add it to the table. Thanks --TeaDrinker 21:58 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow the question. The template can be subst'ed like any other. As I understand it substing just replaces the bracketed expression with the contents of the template. --TeaDrinker 06:46 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes and it is advised that we do that or bots will need to do that slowing down Wikipedia and its processes. Michael 19:49 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's actually expected of a user when posting a template. Michael 19:50 8 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify not all templates are to be subst'd but as far as I've seen this is true for all User talk namespace templates. BigNate37(T) 20:16 8 September 2006 (UTC)
While this is true for many templates but certain ones are expected to be (i.e. warnings or welcome messages). Michael 01:00 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Citing sources
We definitely need a template that warns people about not citing sources for controversial edits. --Liface 17:31 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree but as I understand the citation policy and guidelines it applies to all things which are likely to be challenged -- that is to everything that isn't common knowledge. --SteveMcCluskey 14:51 6 September 2006 (UTC)
After my last I checked around and found that there already is such a template but 1) it is not listed on the template messages page and 2) it does not match the format of those templates that are.
I have proposed a revision to the template to bring it into style and all going well will list it on this page within a week or so. --SteveMcCluskey 17:42 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if we want to say "good work" to someone who may have just posted something made up or libelous. Often when this is done it is just based off a rumor or someone's theory. I know it's friendly for new users but that shouldn't be used in cases of real or continued vandalism. We should have some more stringent warnings for those cases. Michael 23:55 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I Agree; for egregious cases we may need to draft more stringent warnings running from left to right across the grid of warnings. For the moment I'm just starting with the already existing modest template which is aimed at those well meaning folks working in Good faith who put up all sorts of useful material but just don't support it by citing reliable sources. --SteveMcCluskey 02:40 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I just found another template on this topic and it's already listed on the grid of warnings: Template:Needsource. Needsource doesn't deal as directly with the problem and strangely suggests citing the sources on the article talk page. Template:Unref-talk points the editor to some useful guides for proper citation. From the Links here data neither is extensively used although Needsource is used a bit more (which probably has to do with its being on the grid of warnings.
For the moment I think we can do with both but in an ideal world a merge would be in order. Obviously I prefer my revision of Unref-talk although I think Needsource is a better name. One solution would be to put my draft revision at Needsource and then propose a merger with Unref-talk --SteveMcCluskey 03:09 7 September 2006 (UTC)
When I created {{needsource}} I had in mind a good faith addition of new facts into an article not controversial edits so their purposes differ. Titoxd(?!?) 04:09 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Does anyone object to the immediate proposal to move the new draft to Template:needsource replacing the present version and deleting Template:Unref-talk either simply or by merger as redundant? --SteveMcCluskey 13:30 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Unaware of this conversation I boldly went and revised said template. However I think we need to do some work working out the levels of severity ({{needsource}} vs. {{needsource2}}). The good-faith one is much too long for a template of it's severity. I suggest we move it to the second level warning and cut the good faith one back to a few lines.--HereToHelp 18:17 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Vanity/Userfy warning
Hi! I frequently do new page patrol and always try to use appropriate warning tags. However there seem to be an abundance of articles in the fashion of "John Smith is teh AWESOME" and I really don't want to use {{nn-warn}} or {{userfy warning}} on their creators. The former is more appropriate for something that could actually be a notable entry but doesn't yet establish it and the second one seems to encourage users to post their meaningless content in their userspace (and I'm fairly certain none of them will read the rules about what's appropriate for their user page). I know we're not supposed to bite the newbies and assume good faith and all that but I want a better warning--one that perhaps directs them to adding useful content to Wikipedia instead of encouraging them to use the userspace as a free web host for their sophomoric vanity. Is there a better templated warning I could be using? -- Merope 15:42 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I usually use {{vanity}} for that purpose. – ClockworkSoul 15:46 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I can't believe I missed that one. -- Merope 15:49 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Remember to always add "subst:" prior to the template name on the inside of the brackets. Michael 19:48 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The only warning
I am unsure about what kind of situations would justify using {{subst:test4im}}. I have used it 2 or 3 times after e.g. extreme/gross racist content of a vandal's act. Is this one of the situations that may justify using this warning? WP:Vandalism does not specify what exactly is an "extreme case of vandalism". Thank you. --Húsönd 17:53 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's for severe cases. It's a subjective thing but you can usually tell when you need to use it. If someone makes tremendous personal racial or prejudicial remarks those are grounds for giving the warning though in some cases those may just result in indefinite blocks by admins on a basis of severity. Michael 19:47 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Template for unwikified contributions
I've encountered some new users who have repeatedly attempted to add huge blocks of plain (unwikified) text to articles or to create entirely new articles consisting of plain text. I believe these edits may have been made in good faith since they were on-topic and not obvious copyright violations. However it ruins an article when you add hundreds of words of text with no wikilinks section headers paragraph breaks etc. Is there some warning template which welcomes new users and asks them to please familiarize themselves with wiki markup before adding massive amounts of content to articles? —Psychonaut 00:25 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure any such template would be compatible with WP:BITE. We don't want new users to be perfect because that would really flatten spirits and dissuade new users who are still wide-eyed and excited about Wikipedia. Perhaps you just need a direct line to the wikignomes for when this sort of contribution comes in. What you could do is fix the text. Leave a note for the editor explaining how you fixed it which parts of the MOS you brought the article up to snuff with and show a diff of your actions. Sure this work is slower in terms of fixing poor content in the 'pedia but it is far richer in terms of developing rookie editors into great ones. BigNate37(T) 00:35 15 September 2006 (UTC)
nothanks-drm in Image warnings
I noticed {{nothanks-drm}} was in the Images thingy section but doesn't mention images at all. I'd edit it myself but it's too hard --WikiSlasher 10:32 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Fixed by removing it from that section of the warning grid. That template is only useful for text as {{imagevio}} does not provide for temporary subpage creation.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:23 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Duplication with Talk namespace
Should this page list templates that are already listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace? I'm mainly concerned about the consistancy of these templates. It seems to me that the best thing to do is to place the overlapping ones there and mention that fact at the top of this one. --Swift 00:22 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any duplicates can you give examples? --WikiSlasher 07:42 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Per a discussion on an AfD I created User:ConMan/Notyet as a way of telling people "thanks for the article but it's about something that isn't notable yet". How does it look? Confusing Manifestation 10:09 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Because of the recent changes to criteria for speedy deletion A7 to include web content I have created two draft templates to replace (or supplement) {{nn-warn}}.
Let me know which option is prefered or if you have other ideas. It would be nice to keep one template but including the extra language makes the first option ungainly I think. Irongargoyle 01:14 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Obsolete public domain image tag notice template
Can people please give their opinions on this template I made {{User:WikiSlasher/Templates/Bad-PD}}. It asks the user to update the public domain tag for the image they uploaded. --WikiSlasher 10:05 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Does one need to be an Admin. to put warning pages on a talk page or is that only for ones where the user would probably be blocked? I spend a lot of my WP time lookiing through recent edits and new pages and I think I would be a greater help if I could actually put these onto UserTalk pages. Thanks. Paragon12321 03:04 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No you don't need to be an admin to give template warnings to people Wikipedians are encouraged to warn people when they're doing the wrong thing. --WikiSlasher 07:49 14 October 2006 (UTC)
non-admin fwarn
I just came across the discution page for Template talk:Non-admin fwarn and I wanted to know if it had been considered to add it on the list of the test templates (maybe changing its name to something like test4finaltestfw or test5non) ? -- lucasbfrtalk 14:54 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That sure is nice but I agree it's a real cumbersome name. I would agree that one of those others should be created and added to this page. I would encourage you to create a redirect template seeing as you thought of it first. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:10 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Language template
Is there a test template reminding users who post contributions to English Wikipedia in a foreign language that all contributions should be in English (either UK or US)? — Tivedshambo (talk) 16:32 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created {{empty-warn}} for articles tagged under CSD A1. We have templates useful for warning users about articles tagged for speedy deletion for most CSD criteria but nothing useful for empty articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:32 15 October 2006 (UTC)
-n Again
So what really is the deal with the -n templates? Is there a reason they still exist? I would like to see them all merged by adding {{#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]] }} to each. Why hasn't this been done already? I can't seem to find much discussion on the topic but it seems to me that using the parser functions is the way to go. -- Renesis (talk) 17:27 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's the thing that makes the thing optional I say go for it! :) --WikiSlasher 07:09 17 October 2006 (UTC)
great idea! -- lucasbfrtalk 02:02 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking about this and almost made a post elsewhere in regards to merging these templates. I do think I support this but would like to point out that as every counter-vandalism tool I know of uses the named templates exclusively redirecting the named templates to the new two-way templates in lieu of deletion is a must. This would require every automated warning to go through a redirect hoop not to mention the extra code bloat this change would add to every posted warning just for the sake of having omnifunctional templates. Unless we can convince CV tool authors to deprecate and soon eliminate use of the named template versions this change doesn't seem practical and it will always equal more server load and database space used. Could the aforementioned points be (ostensibly) the reasons for having the named templates? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:20 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have an idea let's go through with the plan with the function thing but leave the -n templates there just for the bots to use. Or the bots could be reprogrammed to use the new templates. --WikiSlasher 10:48 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify this isn't a series of templates just used by bots but by everyone using VandalProofPopups etc. These are some of the most frequently-used templates on Wikipedia and changing them would have big effects. I like the idea but in the end I'm not sure if it's worth it because of the extra code it adds for no practical reason to every page it's placed on. The extra code isn't a whole lot but it adds up quickly. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 16:46 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Another clarification: I'm always paranoid/meticulous about things like using too much space relying on redirects and not substing templates so I may just be thinking irrationally. I'm all for this if in the end it's not really a significant change; I'm just trying to highlight the other side of the issue. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:01 19 October 2006 (UTC)
On that note I just read a quote this week from Brion Vibber CTO of Wikimedia: "'Policy' shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job." This may or may not apply here but I tend to agree that we should make the right decision based on community needs not server needs. Also as long as users are correctly subst-ing the templates server load increase should be minimal if noticeable at all. After all - redirects are cheap and if only used once when saving a page would be only a tiny part of that entire transaction. -- Renesis (talk) 21:17 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Good work. Is there a particular plan or strategy you have for implementing this? I'd be happy to help. Have you actually edited the templates yet? -- Renesis (talk) 23:58 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have taken care of pretty much all of the templates with named and unnamed versions on WP:UTM now (the modified versions again are at User:Omicronpersei8/sb/New warnings). The only strategy I foresee needing is one that would help convince an admin to move these changes over since a lot of these templates are fully protected. I actually think this is something that deserves community evaluation first since so many templates will be affected. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:25 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I love the templates already. One thought: would it be considered a good idea to add a second parameter on the test template (only them because they are the most widely used) to put a second page? I see many RC patrollers simply ading test 1 2 3 in one edit when they spot a lot of vandalism from one IP. I did that with Template: non-admin fwarn last day just to see and I like it :) PS: By the way I don't think the test template with 1 argument will add a lot of stress on the server the user pages are not that much visible. -- lucasbfrtalk 02:48 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. -- Renesis (talk) 02:59 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds cool but I alarmist as always think it might be a slippery slope. It's more customary to just give a higher-level warning when one comes across an IP with a lot of prior vandalism. Also I don't see how this would be easily integrated into CV tools which again are the main users of named templates. Lastly I just don't think this would be used much. Renesis thanks for the template links. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:24 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup could be a bad idea too (Am I the only one typing the warnings by hand?) -- lucasbfrtalk 00:25 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not although you might be in the minority. Are you by chance opposed to using CV tools like VandalProof? (I was too at first; it took a few months for me to finally cave in from all-manual RC patrol to Popups and from there to VandalProof.) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:47 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind I just saw you using VP2. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:42 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but when I'm not on VP2 I often write them by hand ^^. Anyway I see all the test? have been done nice! Don't forget the test?a :) -- lucasbfrtalk 18:07 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Centrx may have just done those himself without having seen this discussion. I left a note on his talk page inviting him to take a look if he wants. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:41 21 October 2006 (UTC)
As a user pointed out on Centrx's talk page templates with ParserFunctions shouldn't be substituted. This isn't a policy but certainly something to consider. Why shouldn't they be substed anyway? (No I haven't done any "research" on why this is not preferable – I'm halfway out the door at the moment.) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:50 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Because if you subst them you get ugly wikicode in the edit box like {{#if: 1|foo|bar}} (displaying as "foo"). The parser functions don't get substed only the template itself. In extreme cases this can lead to pages of worthless junk in the edit window. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:59 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Right I think it simply isn't worth it to leave unparsed code fragments on countless talk pages per day just for not having to maintain separate templates. Any chance to get these changes reverted at least until the discussion is over and there is clear consensus? Femto 12:42 22 October 2006 (UTC) That is I do support a simplification of the templates but not with the current capabilities of the Wiki software. Femto 12:57 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template substitution is notoriously backward and regardless the issue to decide here is whether this always-substituted template should include ParserFunctions or not not whether it is contrary to that page. Regarding that it is unclean but it is certainly not "pages" of junk; the if-statement is short and contained. The only issue I would think is the user finding that it is a form template not a personal message which they can already see by the appended comment. Adding more options would obviously make it less clean. —Centrx→talk • 16:18 22 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no reson why they should not be subst'ed with the ParserFunctions. The reason why WP:SUBST says that is because it adds complex wikicode to pages which makes it harder for them to be edited by new users. However in this case they are self-contained and in any case would not normally be edited. For this reason even with the ParserFunctions they should still be subst'ed. Polonium 19:59 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the deal? I always used those templates (I still can't remember them). Why are they gone and where can I go to see them in case I forget again. --Yancyfry jr
test4 + blantantvandal
I moved {{test4}} down to Obvious Vandalism but I never removed it from the Generic section. I made this edit because I felt as if having only Only Warnings for obvious vandalism was a bit inmature/crazy. I felt that Obvious vandalism deserved a regular Final Warning aswell not just only an Only Warning.
I also created the template {{longterm4im}} and added it to the "User Talk Namespace page". Any Ideas on how to improve it and are there any objections to the edit I just talked about? Iced KolaT - C 22:03 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a very useful and gap-filling template. I have seen many vandalism only accounts get away with mischief for far too long simple because the vandalism is sporadic. However I imagine there are many vandals who are unaware of our blocking processes and policies and the sporadic nature of their vandalism is not motivated by calculation to avoid the letter of process. I suggest that the language be modified to speak to an objective basis long term abuse rather than an assumption of their reasons:
"This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:38 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Very good suggestion. If you wish to make any edits to my template in an attempt to approve it go right ahead ;). Iced KolaT - C 02:44 28 October 2006 (UTC) form? Michael 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow the question. The template can be subst'ed like any other. As I understand it, substing just replaces the bracketed expression with the contents of the template. --TeaDrinker 06:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it is advised that we do that or bots will need to do that, slowing down Wikipedia and its processes. Michael 19:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's actually expected of a user when posting a template. Michael 19:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, not all templates are to be subst'd, but as far as I've seen this is true for all User talk namespace templates. BigNate37(T) 20:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
While this is true for many templates, but certain ones are expected to be (i.e. warnings or welcome messages). Michael 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Citing sources
We definitely need a template that warns people about not citing sources for controversial edits. --Liface 17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree, but as I understand the citation policy and guidelines, it applies to all things which are likely to be challenged -- that is, to everything that isn't common knowledge. --SteveMcCluskey 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
After my last, I checked around and found that there already is such a template but 1) it is not listed on the template messages page and 2) it does not match the format of those templates that are.
I have proposed a revision to the template to bring it into style and, all going well, will list it on this page within a week or so. --SteveMcCluskey 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if we want to say "good work" to someone who may have just posted something made up or libelous. Often, when this is done, it is just based off a rumor or someone's theory. I know it's friendly for new users, but that shouldn't be used in cases of real or continued vandalism. We should have some more stringent warnings for those cases. Michael 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I Agree; for egregious cases we may need to draft more stringent warnings, running from left to right across the grid of warnings. For the moment, I'm just starting with the already existing modest template which is aimed at those well meaning folks, working in Good faith, who put up all sorts of useful material but just don't support it by citing reliable sources. --SteveMcCluskey 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I just found another template on this topic and it's already listed on the grid of warnings: Template:Needsource. Needsource doesn't deal as directly with the problem and strangely suggests citing the sources on the article talk page. Template:Unref-talk points the editor to some useful guides for proper citation. From the Links here data, neither is extensively used, although Needsource is used a bit more (which probably has to do with its being on the grid of warnings.
For the moment I think we can do with both, but in an ideal world a merge would be in order. Obviously, I prefer my revision of Unref-talk, although I think Needsource is a better name. One solution would be to put my draft revision at Needsource, and then propose a merger with Unref-talk --SteveMcCluskey 03:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
When I created {{needsource}}, I had in mind a good faith addition of new facts into an article, not controversial edits, so their purposes differ. Titoxd(?!?) 04:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Does anyone object to the immediate proposal to move the new draft to Template:needsource, replacing the present version, and deleting Template:Unref-talk either simply or by merger as redundant? --SteveMcCluskey 13:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Unaware of this conversation, I boldly went and revised said template. However, I think we need to do some work working out the levels of severity ({{needsource}} vs. {{needsource2}}). The good-faith one is much too long for a template of it's severity. I suggest we move it to the second level warning, and cut the good faith one back to a few lines.--HereToHelp 18:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Vanity/Userfy warning
Hi! I frequently do new page patrol and always try to use appropriate warning tags. However, there seem to be an abundance of articles in the fashion of "John Smith is teh AWESOME" and I really don't want to use {{nn-warn}} or {{userfy warning}} on their creators. The former is more appropriate for something that could actually be a notable entry but doesn't yet establish it, and the second one seems to encourage users to post their meaningless content in their userspace (and I'm fairly certain none of them will read the rules about what's appropriate for their user page). I know we're not supposed to bite the newbies and assume good faith and all that, but I want a better warning--one that perhaps directs them to adding useful content to Wikipedia, instead of encouraging them to use the userspace as a free web host for their sophomoric vanity. Is there a better templated warning I could be using? -- Merope 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I usually use {{vanity}} for that purpose. – ClockworkSoul 15:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I can't believe I missed that one. -- Merope 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Remember to always add "subst:" prior to the template name on the inside of the brackets. Michael 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The only warning
I am unsure about what kind of situations would justify using {{subst:test4im}}. I have used it 2 or 3 times after e.g. extreme/gross racist content of a vandal's act. Is this one of the situations that may justify using this warning? WP:Vandalism does not specify what exactly is an "extreme case of vandalism". Thank you. --Húsönd 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's for severe cases. It's a subjective thing, but you can usually tell when you need to use it. If someone makes tremendous personal, racial, or prejudicial remarks, those are grounds for giving the warning, though in some cases, those may just result in indefinite blocks by admins on a basis of severity. Michael 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Template for unwikified contributions
I've encountered some new users who have repeatedly attempted to add huge blocks of plain (unwikified) text to articles, or to create entirely new articles consisting of plain text. I believe these edits may have been made in good faith, since they were on-topic and not obvious copyright violations. However, it ruins an article when you add hundreds of words of text with no wikilinks, section headers, paragraph breaks, etc. Is there some warning template which welcomes new users and asks them to please familiarize themselves with wiki markup before adding massive amounts of content to articles? —Psychonaut 00:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure any such template would be compatible with WP:BITE. We don't want new users to be perfect, because that would really flatten spirits and dissuade new users who are still wide-eyed and excited about Wikipedia. Perhaps you just need a direct line to the wikignomes for when this sort of contribution comes in. What you could do is fix the text. Leave a note for the editor explaining how you fixed it, which parts of the MOS you brought the article up to snuff with, and show a diff of your actions. Sure, this work is slower in terms of fixing poor content in the 'pedia, but it is far richer in terms of developing rookie editors into great ones. BigNate37(T) 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
nothanks-drm in Image warnings
I noticed {{nothanks-drm}} was in the Images thingy section but doesn't mention images at all. I'd edit it myself but it's too hard --WikiSlasher 10:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Fixed by removing it from that section of the warning grid. That template is only useful for text, as {{imagevio}} does not provide for temporary subpage creation.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Duplication with Talk namespace
Should this page list templates that are already listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace? I'm mainly concerned about the consistancy of these templates. It seems to me that the best thing to do is to place the overlapping ones there and mention that fact at the top of this one. --Swift 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any duplicates can you give examples? --WikiSlasher 07:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Per a discussion on an AfD, I created User:ConMan/Notyet as a way of telling people "thanks for the article, but it's about something that isn't notable yet". How does it look? Confusing Manifestation 10:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Because of the recent changes to criteria for speedy deletion A7 to include web content, I have created two draft templates to replace (or supplement) {{nn-warn}}.
Let me know which option is prefered, or if you have other ideas. It would be nice to keep one template, but including the extra language makes the first option ungainly I think. Irongargoyle 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Obsolete public domain image tag notice template
Can people please give their opinions on this template I made, {{User:WikiSlasher/Templates/Bad-PD}}. It asks the user to update the public domain tag for the image they uploaded. --WikiSlasher 10:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Does one need to be an Admin. to put warning pages on a talk page, or is that only for ones where the user would probably be blocked? I spend a lot of my WP time lookiing through recent edits and new pages and I think I would be a greater help if I could actually put these onto UserTalk pages. Thanks. Paragon12321 03:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No you don't need to be an admin to give template warnings to people, Wikipedians are encouraged to warn people when they're doing the wrong thing. --WikiSlasher 07:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
non-admin fwarn
I just came across the discution page for Template talk:Non-admin fwarn and I wanted to know if it had been considered to add it on the list of the test templates (maybe changing its name to something like test4final, testfw or test5non) ? -- lucasbfrtalk 14:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That sure is nice, but I agree, it's a real cumbersome name. I would agree that one of those others should be created and added to this page. I would encourage you to create a redirect template, seeing as you thought of it first. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Language template
Is there a test template reminding users who post contributions to English Wikipedia in a foreign language that all contributions should be in English (either UK or US)? — Tivedshambo (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created {{empty-warn}} for articles tagged under CSD A1. We have templates useful for warning users about articles tagged for speedy deletion for most CSD criteria but nothing useful for empty articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
-n, Again
So what really is the deal with the -n templates? Is there a reason they still exist? I would like to see them all merged, by adding {{#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]] }} to each. Why hasn't this been done already? I can't seem to find much discussion on the topic, but it seems to me that using the parser functions is the way to go. -- Renesis (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's the thing that makes the thing optional I say go for it! :) --WikiSlasher 07:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
great idea! -- lucasbfrtalk 02:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking about this and almost made a post elsewhere in regards to merging these templates. I do think I support this but would like to point out that as every counter-vandalism tool I know of uses the named templates exclusively, redirecting the named templates to the new two-way templates in lieu of deletion is a must. This would require every automated warning to go through a redirect hoop, not to mention the extra code bloat this change would add to every posted warning just for the sake of having omnifunctional templates. Unless we can convince CV tool authors to deprecate and soon eliminate use of the named template versions, this change doesn't seem practical, and it will always equal more server load and database space used. Could the aforementioned points be (ostensibly) the reasons for having the named templates? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have an idea, let's go through with the plan with the function thing but leave the -n templates there just for the bots to use. Or the bots could be reprogrammed to use the new templates. --WikiSlasher 10:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this isn't a series of templates just used by bots, but by everyone using VandalProof, Popups, etc. These are some of the most frequently-used templates on Wikipedia, and changing them would have big effects. I like the idea, but in the end I'm not sure if it's worth it because of the extra code it adds for no practical reason to every page it's placed on. The extra code isn't a whole lot but it adds up quickly. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Another clarification: I'm always paranoid/meticulous about things like using too much space, relying on redirects, and not substing templates, so I may just be thinking irrationally. I'm all for this if in the end it's not really a significant change; I'm just trying to highlight the other side of the issue. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
On that note, I just read a quote this week from Brion Vibber, CTO of Wikimedia: "'Policy' shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; keeping things tuned to provide what the user base needs is our job." This may or may not apply here, but I tend to agree that we should make the right decision based on community needs, not server needs. Also, as long as users are correctly subst-ing the templates, server load increase should be minimal, if noticeable at all. After all - redirects are cheap and if only used once when saving a page, would be only a tiny part of that entire transaction. -- Renesis (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Good work. Is there a particular plan or strategy you have for implementing this? I'd be happy to help. Have you actually edited the templates yet? -- Renesis (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have taken care of pretty much all of the templates with named and unnamed versions on WP:UTM now (the modified versions, again, are at User:Omicronpersei8/sb/New warnings). The only strategy I foresee needing is one that would help convince an admin to move these changes over, since a lot of these templates are fully protected. I actually think this is something that deserves community evaluation first, since so many templates will be affected. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I love the templates already. One thought: would it be considered a good idea to add a second parameter on the test template (only them, because they are the most widely used) to put a second page? I see many RC patrollers simply ading test 1, 2, 3 in one edit when they spot a lot of vandalism from one IP. I did that with Template: non-admin fwarn last day just to see, and I like it :) PS: By the way, I don't think the test template with 1 argument will add a lot of stress on the server, the user pages are not that much visible. -- lucasbfrtalk 02:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. -- Renesis (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds cool but I, alarmist as always, think it might be a slippery slope. It's more customary to just give a higher-level warning when one comes across an IP with a lot of prior vandalism. Also, I don't see how this would be easily integrated into CV tools, which, again, are the main users of named templates. Lastly, I just don't think this would be used much. Renesis, thanks for the template links. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup could be a bad idea too (Am I the only one typing the warnings by hand?) -- lucasbfrtalk 00:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not, although you might be in the minority. Are you by chance opposed to using CV tools like VandalProof? (I was too at first; it took a few months for me to finally cave in from all-manual RC patrol to Popups and from there to VandalProof.) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just saw you using VP2. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but when I'm not on VP2 I often write them by hand ^^. Anyway, I see all the test? have been done, nice! Don't forget the test?a :) -- lucasbfrtalk 18:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Centrx may have just done those himself without having seen this discussion. I left a note on his talk page inviting him to take a look if he wants. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
As a user pointed out on Centrx's talk page, templates with ParserFunctions shouldn't be substituted. This isn't a policy, but certainly something to consider. Why shouldn't they be substed, anyway? (No, I haven't done any "research" on why this is not preferable – I'm halfway out the door at the moment.) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Because if you subst them, you get ugly wikicode in the edit box, like {{#if: 1|foo|bar}} (displaying as "foo"). The parser functions don't get substed, only the template itself. In extreme cases this can lead to pages of worthless junk in the edit window. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, I think it simply isn't worth it to leave unparsed code fragments on countless talk pages per day just for not having to maintain separate templates. Any chance to get these changes reverted, at least until the discussion is over and there is clear consensus? Femto 12:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC) That is, I do support a simplification of the templates, but not with the current capabilities of the Wiki software. Femto 12:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template substitution is notoriously backward and regardless the issue to decide here is whether this always-substituted template should include ParserFunctions or not, not whether it is contrary to that page. Regarding that, it is unclean but it is certainly not "pages" of junk; the if-statement is short and contained. The only issue I would think is the user finding that it is a form template not a personal message, which they can already see by the appended comment. Adding more options would obviously make it less clean. —Centrx→talk • 16:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no reson why they should not be subst'ed with the ParserFunctions. The reason why WP:SUBST says that is because it adds complex wikicode to pages, which makes it harder for them to be edited by new users. However, in this case they are self-contained and in any case would not normally be edited. For this reason, even with the ParserFunctions, they should still be subst'ed. Polonium 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the deal? I always used those templates, (I still can't remember them). Why are they gone and where can I go to see them in case I forget again. --Yancyfry jr
test4 + blantantvandal
I moved {{test4}} down to Obvious Vandalism, but I never removed it from the Generic section. I made this edit because I felt as if having only Only Warnings for obvious vandalism was a bit inmature/crazy. I felt that Obvious vandalism deserved a regular Final Warning aswell, not just only an Only Warning.
I also created the template {{longterm4im}}, and added it to the "User Talk Namespace page". Any Ideas on how to improve it, and are there any objections to the edit I just talked about? Iced KolaT - C 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a very useful and gap-filling template. I have seen many vandalism only accounts get away with mischief for far too long simple because the vandalism is sporadic. However, I imagine there are many vandals who are unaware of our blocking processes and policies, and the sporadic nature of their vandalism is not motivated by calculation to avoid the letter of process. I suggest that the language be modified to speak to an objective basis, long term abuse, rather than an assumption of their reasons:
"This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Very good suggestion. If you wish to make any edits to my template in an attempt to approve it, go right ahead ;). Iced KolaT - C 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
\(caint) 17:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
