Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Template index

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

{{uw-unsor1}}

After using {{uw-unsor1}} and then hearing a reasonable objection to the wording from the receiving editor at my talk, I made bold changes to {{uw-unsor1}} and {{uw-unsor2}} I looked at {{uw-unsor3}} but decided that politeness was not indicated for it, so did not make changes to it. A few more talk page comments followed as indicated on my talk and now I am bringing the changes here for review and comment change to uw-unsor1 and change to uw-unsor2. Essentially I have added a polite section that implies the editor is familiar with policy but some how the references did get saved on the current version of the article. To the second template {{uw-unsor2}} I added a bit offering to help if the editor is not familiar with how to add references. Thoughts or comments? Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and of course, not to the question you asked;-) . But I think the level 3 is to nice, compared to the other level 3-s. It should have no "thank you" at the ending, should it? Most of them don't even have the sandbox-comment. It is assumed the user in question allready know about the sandbox when we have to issue a level 3 warning. Greswik 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Two proposed templates

Based on several conversations here and at WT:UW, I am proposing two templates for addition to the UTM page. First, a warning template for misuse of blocking or warning templates - proposed text available here. Second, a warning template for inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries - proposed text available here. They are both designed to be usable as level one/AGF warnings, though neither has the "welcome to Wikipedia" language - so they can be used after another message or warning.

I know there is some concern about template creep, or excessive numbers of warning templates, and I share that concern to a degree. However, there is a value in having specific templates available for situations where a more generic warning might not be sufficient to clarify the editing concern. I believe these templates would be useful additions to UTM, and there have been several requests for them.--Kubigula (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the idea of a template for edit summaries. However, I don't see the need for a template for improper warnings. If the warnings are used to vandalise, then use the uw-vandalism series on the user who falsely warned. If the warning was left in error, but in good faith, a friendly note works well. My 2 cents. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I felt the same way initially, but there was a conversation on the uw talk page that ultimately swayed me to thinking the template could be useful.--Kubigula (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the template for edit summaries should include "deceptive" somewhere in there. Some vandals learn to put "rv" or "spelling" in their ES to avoid suspicion. bibliomaniac15 Two years of trouble and general madness 21:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, if you include the word "deceptive", the template's not really useable as a level one AGF warning. My own feeling is that it's worth having as a single use template, with follow-up by the regular vandalism warnings - we've made it clear to the vandal that we are on to his or her trick.--Kubigula (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also discussion about inappropriate edit summaries here. Hydrogen Iodide 21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done. {{uw-wrongsummary}} and {{uw-tempabuse}} have been added to UTM. The names are a bit long, so we may need shortcuts.--Kubigula (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template idea/request

Removal of redirect

For the instances when editors remove redirects, thus basically reinstating an old version of an article that was moved, resulting in two articles with basically the same content. I have seen this so many times, and there is no existing template message that I can find that covers this issue.

Proposed Single issue notice draft at:

User:ArielGold/template

{{subst:User:ArielGold/template|Article|Extra Text}}

Appears as:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! We appreciate all editors coming to help improve the encyclopedia. However, it appears that one of your edits recently removed an existing redirect. Please do not remove redirects, because it splits the article's page history, which is needed for attribution, and creates two variants of the same article. Instead, please discuss your concerns about the redirect on the main article's talk page, and propose possible solutions. Redirects created from page moves should remain in place, unless consensus is reached by the community to change them. Thank you. ^Ariel♥Gold 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts? (Feel free to edit the template as needed if I've made a mistake with scripting.) ^Ariel♥Gold 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's nicely written. I haven't personally run into this situation much myself, so I can't speak to the need for a template message.--Kubigula (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Uw-bv and Uw-vandalism4im

To me, both Uw-bv and Uw-vandalism4im seem to accomplish the same task. They both give the vandal some sort of final warning (since uw-bv is single-issue and an editor is unlikely warn again after issuing Uw-vandalism4im) and let the vandal/personal attacker/etc. know that he/she will be blocked if he/she keeps vandalizing. Even though {{Uw-vandalism4im}} is not part of the single-issue user warning set, I believe the template fits that criteria because it's an only warning which bypasses the usual set of four vandalism warning templates. To me, it looks like {{uw-bv}} is just a wordy version of uw-vandalism4im with a slightly friendier intro "Welcome to Wikipedia". I think the content in uw-bv should be merged into Uw-vandalism4im. Comments? _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 01:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

adding "blankown" template?

In trying to find out what could be done about an editor who blanks their own talk page to hide recently-issued vandalism warnings, I discovered the {{blankown}} template. It seems to me that this belongs in this article (it is certainly a template intended for the "User talk" namespace) but I'm not sure where. Any suggestions? Even though blanking your own talk page is not technically considered vandalism it is still frowned upon, and I think it would be appropriate to add it to Single level warnings. Would like to hear feedback from others. Tim Pierce 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Template:Uw-tpv3 and its siblings cover this? --Orlady 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, my understanding is that there is no consensus that blanking your talk page is against any sort of rule. I think it should be, but I don't think it is that way. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking or defacing someone else's talk page is vandalism, but not your own. See the WikiProject User Warnings FAQ for background. Tim Pierce 05:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-subst}}

I left this template for someone the other day and they came back to me for an explanation. I think it could use some clarification. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion

This page is huge. I suggest moving the tables of templates into different sub-pages, and transcluding them back to the main Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 14:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

35K doesn't seem huge. Is this really a problem? EdJohnston 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to clarify. I meant huge in the sense of the template box lists. Users who may wish to add or edit the current template boxes might have some trouble adding to them. Editing by sections eases this issue, but I just thought that sub-pages could be more efficient. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-notenglish}}

Is there a variant of notenglish that is more suitable for articles? In particular, there was a Portuguese article written, and the message I used isn't optimal. --Sigma 7 02:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-afd1}}

Is there a variant of this series of templates which can be used for people removing fair use warnings from their user talk pages? This is something I came across in User talk:BrothaTimothy whilst patrolling the Recent Changes Log for vandalism. The template didn't really say what I needed it to say, but I used it nonetheless. Thanks. --Tckma 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Warnings about users removing warnings from their own pages seems to be frequently requested… If the user has taken care of the problem image (even if "taking care of it" means "let it be deleted"), why shouldn't they remove the warnings? Anomie 11:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Even more templates

I was wondering if these should be included here and/or standardized/merged?

Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages

Thanks. - Rocket000 02:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the level4 warning templates slightly

So as to make them less inflammatory. Instead of "This is your last/only warning", they read "This is the last/only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits".--Avant Guard 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uw-npov1

The level 1 template for NPOV violations seems a tad accusatory when you include an article name as the first parameter (the sentence added when you specify a first parameter reads, "It appears you have not followed this policy at article name."). To avoid biting the newbies, I'd like to modify the sentence to carry a bit more explanation of the problem and focus less on the formalities of policy (a tone more appropriate for level 2). I'm thinking something like, "A contribution you made to article name appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem." Anyway, I wanted to bring this up here first since the UW template pages note that the texts have been carefully crafted, and I didn't want to change anything without some indication of consensus first. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 06:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"McGonegal rocks!" - vandalism, NPOV, or other?

When a user ads a comment like "McGonegal is the best character in the HP series", what should we do? A NPOV warning seems a bit too mild, but it's an on-topic coversation, so it's not quite vandalism. Do we need one that fits between them, like "this comment was written in an un-encyclopedic tone"?--SarekOfVulcan 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on where it is. If it's on an HP page, it's just silly stupid stuff. If it's on, say, Abraham Lincoln, it's vandalism. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-afd}} suggestion

Is it worthwhile to create uw-cfd and uw-mfd templates corresponding to the {{uw-afd}} series of templates? Alternately, perhaps we can add a parameter to the uw-afd tags so that they can be used for category and miscellany for deletion notices as well? Something along the following lines:

It would be appreciated if you would not remove {{
#switch:{{{type}}}
 |afd=[[Template:Afd|Articles for deletion notices]]
 |cfd=[[Template:Cfd|Categories for deletion notices]]
 |mfd=[[Template:Mfd|Miscellany for deletion notices]]
 |[[Template:Afd|Articles for deletion notices]]
}} or remove other people's comments in {{
#switch:{{{type}}}
 |afd=[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion debates]]
 |cfd=[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion|Categories for deletion debates]]
 |mfd=[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|Miscellany for deletion debates]]
 |[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion debates]]
}}

If so, the templates might have to be moved to uw-xfd or similar. --Muchness 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect templates

Hi i believe that the test templates (ex {{test}}, {{test2}} ect.) should be redirected to the appropriate WP:UTM template because the templates are on that page are designed to replace Template:TestTemplates--AFUSCO 00:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why?

What was the point in redirecting {{bv}} to {{uw-vandalism3}}? They are completely different messages. Bad form IMO. KOS | talk 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Most if not all of the templates have been restored. KOS | talk 20:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins issuing warnings

Hi, everyone. I have an issue which may have been discussed in the past but I believe deserves a fresh look. Specifically, it has to do with non-admins issuing level 3 and above warnings to other editors. Recently an editor issued myself an another person level 3 warning accusing us of vandalism. We had made exactly one edit each which contributed to the articles. Naturally, we were nervous about this admin issuing us such stern warnings for a legit edit. When we went to complain about this we were told he is indeed *not* an admin. We were confused how and why a non-admin can ussing a level 3 warning (which says "you will be blocked..."). Moreover, it is clear he used this warning in order to gain a psychological advantage in his warn. I submit that non-admins not be allowed to issue warnings. Telling people to simply ignore it fosters an environment where new and casual editors (like myself) become nervous and scared about further editing attempts. Thank you. Bstone 01:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism and engaging in edit wars are warnable and blockable actions... Other than the fact that it was you who was warned, what has changed to warrant a new discussion on this oft-trod issue? Leuko 02:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, are you kidding me? All I made was my first edit on the AUA page, and I got this intimidating "level 3" warning on my Talk page. It basically said, "you will be blocked..." My second option was to do a consensus. But guess what? I left a message on AUA Talk page that was left unanswered for 24 hours. It was apparent you weren't ready for any kind of consensus for whatever reasons, so I had to resort to my choices of reporting you to the admin forum. Basically, if I changed the page, I would be threatened with banning. If I post on the Talk page, my request goes unanswered. If you were in my place, what would have you done? By the way, we did a consensus and the results were as expected - the majority was against you. If one not only makes unsound judgments, but also threatens people with banning - that's a very dangerous combination. DrGladwin 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to warn someone a block is coming, you just need to be correct about it a reasonable amount of time. Admins have special powers, not special authority. Normal editors have just as much responsibility to enforce policy. If a person has a history of leaving incorrect warnings, leave a warning on their talk page about it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1 == 2, this is the current situation, but as you read in my above first post I suggest that these warnings should not be available for regular editors to issue. Specifically, they insinuate that the warning editor (Leuko in the above situation) actually has the ability to ban someone. Imagine our surprise when we found this not to be the case at all. Imagine how we felt when we were given this warning which was over the top by someone who has no ability to carry it out. I suggest that level 3 and above warnings not be available for non-admin editors to issue. Thank you. Bstone 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If the warned individual fails to heed the warning, then the warning editor just heads over to WP:AIV, reports the individual, and the next administrator to stop by will briefly review the situation and (if everything's kosher) block the user. A non-admin may not have the ability to place the block, but they have the ability to report the situation to those who do, and that's just as good. It seems to me that your issue is different from what you're suggesting as a solution, namely that you feel that some folks abuse the higher-level warnings when a lower-level warning will do. Conflating the two issues only makes it harder to resolve either one. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 06:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Your suggestion is just not how things work here. Admins are not referee's and regular editors are just as allowed to enforce policy as anyone else. There are places they can go to have the block enforced. I think it should stay that way, and I think it is very much likely to stay that way. I read your comment in full. Users who abuse the warnings can be dealt with. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors who purposefully use (incorrect) warnings to intimidate other users, or who never learn how to use them with any accuracy may be subjected to community sanctions banning them from using warnings. However, with only 1,347 admins, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of vandals disallowing regular users from issuing level 3 and 4 warnings is simply not an option. Keep in mind that your situation is the exception, not the rule. Users are discouraged from skipping 2 or more warnings except in extreme circumstances. The Hybrid 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)So you're suggesting because some one does not have the technical ability to enforce policy besides giving warnings, they should not even be able to tell blatant vandals what the result of their continued actions will be? Policy says: You vandalize, you get blocked. Why can non-admins not say what policy is? Wikipedia only has ~1300 admins, not all are active and many do not do vandalism patrol. I don't even know where to start to tell all of the problems this could cause. Mr.Z-man 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr Z, not sure if you read all what I wrote. I clearly wrote that in this case the editor who issued the warning was doing so entirely baselessly. He was unhappy with our edits (which were in no way vandalism) but immediately issued a level 3 vandalism warning. Naturally, this is frustrating and brings up a whole host of questions and issues which I present above. Again- the warning was used in an attempt to get myself and another editor to not edit an article, not because there was actual vandalism occurring. Bstone 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No editor, admin or not is supposed to give incorrect warnings. But people make mistakes and we assume good faith, we're all human, nobody is perfect. Forbidding non-admins from issuing level 3 or 4 warnings is not going to help anything, it'll just make a ton of other problems a lot worse. I'm not saying you are a blatant vandal, but your suggestion would not allow warnings to be given to even the most blatant vandals, if the warning editor is not an admin. Mr.Z-man 06:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, if individual users abuse the warnings, then they can be dealt with individually. However, what all of us are trying to say is that banning non-admins from issuing warnings entirely is impractical. The Hybrid 06:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless a user is leaving a warning that says "I personally will block you", this is a misperception on the part of the warned party. Non-issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It recently fooled two of us who are casual editors here. Clearly, not a non-issue. Bstone 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You've taken it to ANI, so they will deal with the editor individually if need be. Do you understand why banning regular users from issuing warnings is an impractical idea? The Hybrid 06:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)