Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

If you have a query, please see The User Warnings Wikiproject Frequently Asked Questions to see if it is answered there.

Subst paramter

Can this be added to the icon template call? Rich Farmbrough, 12:27 15 October 2007 (GMT).

Possible flaw in level 3 warning

The warning says "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.". However, only adminstrator can block. Therefore, if an editor places such warning, they cannot place the block themselves. The request may be denied. Is this a hollow threat? Or original research (just a joke)? I am reluctant to use level 3 warnings because I cannot block others.

How about possible alternate wordings such as:
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, steps will be taken to block you from editing.

This a non-admin can say. The steps include AIV. The wording does not guarantee that the person will be blocked but is clear enough. Archtransit (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of being concise, I am thinking that the original is OK. The reason is that in practice, those who continue to vandalize past level 3 get a level 4 warning, and if it happens again get reported to the administrators noticeboard. When such a report is made, inevitably the user gets blocked within an hour.Ngchen (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

While I understand this concern, I cannot say that I share it. The level three warnings do not say that I am going to block you; they merely state that if you continue to vandalize, you will be blocked (by someone). Likewise, speaking as editors "inside" the warning process, we who report level four violations may not be the admins levying the blocks, but we are the people initiating the investigation that leads to a block via our reports to WP:AIV, WP:ANI, etc. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to see a similar discussion to the wording of level three warnings here. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:uw-bv

Hi. What exactly qualifies for "Blatant vandalism" {{subst:uw-bv}}? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Determining the "severity" of vandalism is often in the eye of the beholder. Some might consider this or perhaps this, but it is often a judgment call. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As Kralizec says, it's a judgment call. I personally reserve bv for situations where the vandalism is hateful - racist, misogynistic etc.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And what's the intended difference between this and {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a complete answer to your question, but uw-bv assumes less experience than 4im - there's much more information and policy in the bv template. I have used uw-bv when I have reason to think a user is new and needs more information, but their vandalism is especially offensive and thus deserving of a stronger warning. Kubigula's examples are good ones, and I also use bv for attack vandalism. Level 4im seems more appropriate for someone who obviously knows their way around, but has either vandalized a lot without being warned, or is committing vandalism of an especially sneaky nature. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with what Natalie said, though I find the examples a bit lame for bv warnings. Looking through my own edits, the last bv warning I gave was for [1], but I also use them for vandals who are on a blatant spree and haven't yet been warned, just to get their attention. I think the bv warning means the vandal may be blocked if they vandalise again, and the 4im warning means they will be blocked if they vandalise again. I will quite often follow a bv warning with a level 3 or 4 warning (or both, or even a lower level warning). I tend to use the 4im warning for vandals whose next edit is entirely predictable. But I think the real difference between the two, as Natalie suggests, is in the level of intent. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the difference was the blatantwarning was deprecated, but it seems to have been added again (or perhaps I allways was wrong. ). But appart from that, I tend to behave as if people has gotten a uw-vandalism4im if I find a Blatant vandalism-warning. I think the blatanwarning serves good if you find someone with several vandal-edits, but no warnings. Greswik 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)-

TfD nomination of Template:TestTemplates

Template:TestTemplates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Uw-delete2 vs WP:V.

Can we change "Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia." to "Please do not delete reliably sourced content from pages on Wikipedia."? WP:V and all that. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-01t22:20z

Done.Ngchen 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a good change. We don't want people deleting any large chunks of content without explanation. If they are deleting the content because it's unsourced and they think it's incorrect, that's fine, but we still want them to explain this in the edit summary. Otherwise it just looks like vandalism. Even unsourced content (assuming it's correct) has value to the project, and we don't want people deleting it.--Kubigula (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Then would "Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining why" work better? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - that's a definite improvement, in my opinion.--Kubigula (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've re-tweaked {{uw-delete2}} along the lines suggested by Damian Yerrick. Anyone have concerns with this version?--Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS needs to be in there - this template is being used to give warnings for deleting unsourced fancruft. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-02t19:28z

I don't see a problem here. If you want to remove unverifiable fancruft, then say so in the edit summary. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My preference is to not add an explicit mention of WP:RS to the template. While we all know from the official verifiability policy that "any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed," I fear that this change would have a chilling effect on both the usage of the template and reverts of un-explained deletions. This is largely because less-experienced editors may incorrectly presume that {{uw-delete2}} is only good for cases where sourced material was removed, and as Kubigula indicated, unsourced content (I prefer to call it "not-yet sourced") does have value to the project. Leaving WP:RS off the template gives us a lot of flexibility while still effectively getting the point across to the content-deleting editor. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That wording just doesnt work at all. What if an editor gives a completely invalid reason for removing something? It's just going to make people think 'as long as i give a reason i can remove what a like' --Neon white (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If a user has started giving obviously invalid reasons for removing content in the edit summary, you can use a template related to the reasons or, better yet, explain to the user in your own words why the reasons are invalid. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(dedenting) And if you must use a template, try {{subst:uw-wrongsummary}}. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We should take the opportunity with this template to warn deleters against following up with bogus edit summaries. Phrasing in that first sentence would be better as "... without providing a meaningful explanation of the reason for the removal in the edit summary." {{subst:uw-wrongsummary}} is useful, but it lacks escalating levels of warning. A progressive 1-2-3-4-im warning system supports effective countervandalism. Dl2000 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If "deleters" and other malicious editors do make up false edit summaries, it would probably be better to simply use the generic warnings for vandalism or blanking or whatever they hid under the false edit summary. We don't need a progressive warning system for every single warning we have. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Substitution failures

Something in the substitution code is failing in the Template:Uw-vandalism1 series. The "subst if" commands are still in the template even after being substituted on user pages. Would someone who understands the wikicode please look into fixing it? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Typing {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article|And this is some extra text for the subst if}}, gave

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Article, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. And this is some extra text for the subst if.

Looks OK to me, can you explain exactly what you were doing or give an example please. ^Khukri 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Template:Minor into Template:Uw-minor?

Is there a reason for having both {{Minor}} and {{Uw-minor}} templates? I think it looks like the first one should be merged into the second one. I considered marking the pages with merge tags, but I didn't want to risk screwing up the templates or missing the reason for having two separate templates. Thanks. -- HiEv 03:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:minor is the old (pre-uw) version. My understanding is that some people prefer the older versions, though I'm not sure how strong that sentiment still is. There's really no need to merge. I'd personally support a redirect, though I'm biased in that I like the uw system.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

uw-joke[1-2]

On {{uw-joke1}} it might be an idea to add a reference to Uncyclopedia to these to help distract vandals and give them a place where their edits actually might be perceived as productive. It's not part of the Wikimedia non-profit project, but since it's Wikia, I figure it's close enough since it's Jimbo's brainchild and they're one of our largest supporters

I reason that it might help reduce the WP:BEANS effect and make the best of the situation, since it gives involves a perceived choice on the part of the vandal: either his joke instantaneously gets deleted and he gets more cold warnings and a block, or it gets read by a bunch of people, laughed at with applause, and maybe even featured on their main page. :P The latter choice is likely what the vandal was after in the first place anyway (per WP:DENY and WP:BJAODN); so, if we give them the option of getting exactly what they wanted, they might be less inclined to persist in their vandalism. Any thoughts? --slakr^\ talk / 06:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like one of those old-timers who dredges up old conversations, we did have a discussion on this point earlier this year. Joke1 used to include a link to BJOADN, then Uncyclopedia, but there were valid objections to both. The archived discussion (under uw-joke1) is atWikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 7#All uw- templates are now redirected here.--Kubigula (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-balkans}}

guys, this is something I forgot to bring here the other week but just remembered, so better late than never. Sandstein added the above warning to the main page after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, this was done with good intention though I believe this warning should have greater concensus before going live (my comments and reasoning are in the blocks and logs section of the ArbReq). Thoughts please? ^Khukri 15:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (signed later oops)

I say that placing such a template on the UTM page is a bad idea. The tone of the message is very biting to me and unknowing newbies may be extremely offended by this message. Such a warning on the UTM page may also encourage users who are in a dispute relating to the subject to place these templates on users' talk pages without thought or to get back at them. I also concur with your point on this template leading to things like Template:Uw-ireland, Template:Uw-israel-palestine etc.. Not every editor involved in editing the related Balans pages needs this rude message on their talk page and those that do should have a more personal message rather than a template. So to sum up my point, the template is over-excessive and not needed. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole idea of this preemptive warning is contrary to WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. More in line with policy, IMO, would be to give the warning to editors who are beginning to engage in behaviors that would result in these sanctions. Yes, this means they might get away with slightly more disruption, but the alternative is worse. Anomie⚔ 02:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely not suited for UTM. And personally I think templating is a very bad idea here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

uw-advert2

Shouldn't this say "promotional" rather than "commercial" material? It's not only commercial stuff that gets spammed on Wikipedia, and there doesn't seem to be any other series of warnings that applies to promotional additions. - ∅ (∅), 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be better.--Kubigula (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Create an account, please!

Does anyone want to create a template whereby it can be placed on anonymous IP's talk-pages informing them about the benefits of creating an account? This is assuming, of course, that such anonymous editors are making regular contributions to certain article(s) and it is obvious that they are serious-ish editors. So it may be helpful to let them know about the benefits of creating an account and the template can direct them to the appropriate WP page that deals with it. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Like {{welcome-anon}} ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several welcome template that fit the purpose: See Template:Welc-anon, Template:AnonymousWelcome, and Template:Welcome-anon-vandal. Hope that helps. --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. Ekantik ^talk 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

uw-notcensored3

Someone has gone an nominated uw-notcensored3 and uw-notcensored4 for deletion without discussion. The point regarding softening the wording is valid; I suggest changing {{uw-notcensored3}} to

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. If you continue to make changes which have the effect of censoring an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

and changing {{uw-notcensored4}} to redirect to {{uw-delete4}} rather than {{uw-vandalism4}}. Any thoughts? Anomie⚔ 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Have replied on the TfD, cheers for bring this to our attention. ^Khukri 10:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:uw-test2

This template currently states "Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them". Should we really be discouraging second-time low-level offenders (i.e. test2 rather than vand2) from attempting to fix articles, like this wording suggests? Surely attempting to fix an article is not even covered by what we would normally consider as "test edits"? And if I'm merely misunderstanding the wording, and it's actually saying they should not be attempting to fix their own test edits (in which case it could be made clearer perhaps), then why should we be discouraging users reverting themselves?
I feel this template perhaps needs a bit of rewording. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the template was meant that the vandals should not make test edits even if they are going to remove the test edits they made afterwards. The wording may be slightly confusing and if someone comes up with a better way to word this sentence them I'm all for it. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Blog template

Is there a template to use or noticeboard to report a user using their userpage as a sport's blog? Mbisanz (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There are only templates for the more common problems, and even then they aren't a substitute for a good ol' personal message. All the templates are listed on the project page. Cheers ^Khukri 08:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Uw-tblock}}

I am considering bringing this template to TfD to be honest. I don't think it is a good idea to template people to tell them that it is bad to make death threats. What do you think? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think death and legal (until it's withdrawn) threats were temporary blocks, but yea I'd go along with that Lucas ^Khukri 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was so stunned by the by the big bold making death threats that I didn't see that! :D. Note that the legal threats one makes more sense, since WP:NLT is policy. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note there is also {{Deaththreatblock}} for indef-blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Should I bring one to tfd I'll bring the other then. Note that this one is only transcluded on 3 pages. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get round to TfDing it since I saw this version. The obvious solution with the uw-tblock template is to reword it so that it refers to inappropriate threats, or similar. There are many types of threat which will earn a block, some of them are temporary, and vandalism does not always seem to be an apt description. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the templates would suffice if they simply said "making threats" rather than "making death threats". Same with the legal threat {{Uw-lblock}} template. If we say "death" and "legal" threats, that is a) too much information; and b) putting specific ideas in other unscrupulous user's heads.--12 Noon ^2¢ 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea. ^Khukri 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How does "Threatening to take real world actions" sound, if you want a template? I dunno to be honest, WP:DENY pops in my mind when I imagine a situation where I would use such a template (Personally I think the NLT one should be kept though, for it is a convenient way to let the user know exactly why they are blocked). -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition

perhaps on the end of these templates you could add ~~~~. It's not that big of a deal, but it would make life just a bit easier Ctjf83 ^talk 21:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

user page

Hi, I seem to have inadvertently vandalised my own user page when I clumsily tried to add a sandbox. Unfortunately I can't see to undo or revert the change. Can anyone help?--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)