Template talk:Vandalism information

Note: This template has already survived two TfD polls and was deemed useful. The previous nominations were:

/Archive1

Available styles

Don't archive this section!

User:Zsinj's version

Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)

Low to moderate level of vandalism

[view • purge • update]

2.03 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 07:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Misza13's version

4	WikiDefcon 4 Low to moderate level of vandalism
2.03 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot —07:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

digital_me's version

4	WikiDefcon 4 Low to moderate level of vandalism
2.03 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot

Note: This has a white border. See my userpage for how it looks.--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 21:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This appears to be only used here, here and here, but not on Digitalme's userpage. Just saying in case someone is confused why it isn't shown on his userpage, linked above as an example. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well at the time, it was my userpage. I keep several ready, depending on my mood. ;) --digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 03:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GangstaEB's version

User:GangstaEB/Wdefcon

User:Herostratus' version

2.03 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 07:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC) change[reply]

Darn. If a sig is over about 16 characters it breaks this template by forcing it to be longer than a userbox. Is there any solution to this I wonder. Herostratus 04:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidpk212's version

WikiDefcon

1

2

3

4

5

WikiDefcon 4

Low to moderate level of vandalism

Comment:
2.03 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 07:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC) (change)[reply]

User:Hexagon1's versions

User:Yanksox/Wdefcon

My second version: "

4". +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ILovePlankton's version

2.03 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 07:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)change[reply]

Shane's Version

VANDALISM THREAT

Guarded

__

Based off the United States Department of Homeland Security Terrorist Meter -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome... Gang sta EB (sliding logs~dive logs) 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nautical version

Small craft advisory. (Low to moderate level of vandalism)

2.03 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot07:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC) change[reply]

Based on the US Weather Service's maritime warning flags. 5=no warning 4=small craft warning 3=gale warning 2=storm warning 1=hurricane warning. Adopted in the 1950's and until recently flown at US Coast Guard stations etc. Admittedly US-centric. Also, the double flags would be flown on one pole, but that made the graphic too tall... Herostratus 04:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timrem's Version

4

WikiDefcon 4: 2.03 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot

Speedy?

When I was here a bit ago, this template was showing a speedy deletion tag. Now it's gone, & I don't see it in the history. Have I finally gone insane from editing too long? :-) --Ssbohio 02:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so, I just had a quick browse of the history and didn't see any speedy tag. Seek medical advice. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a complex template with various transclusions. The speedy delete was an attempt to clean out one of the transcluded templates, which then appeared on the main template page. And per the vandals reading these messages too, I'm not about to go into detail on how this template works. You don't need medical advice, for now. The vandals may cause certain psycological conditions such as annoyance, however. Kevin_b_er 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SILLY-O-METER ALERT LEVEL 1 - DATABASE LOCK RECOMMENDED

Why does level 1 once again recommend a database lock? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of what just happened? -Spring Rubber 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They locked the DB because of the sudden server overload, not the vandalism. Locking the db doesn't stop vandalism; it just locks the current version of every single article in place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it would probably help in an all-out vandalism fest. -Spring Rubber 04:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure the recommendations made on a userpage template are disregarded when it comes to db locks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Turns out the db was locked because the sudden increase in traffic downed an already-weak db server. It's been up and down all night. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked

Just to give everyone a heads up the template was blanked. I restored it and will be watching it for furture blanking. I have also warned the User blanked it. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should semi-protect this template? --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 22:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for sudden spike.

Just incase you still don't know whats going on. Steven Colbert made a (sarcastic) request on his show tongiht, The Colbert Report for users to edit wikipedia to show a tripleing in the elephant population over last six months. The word on his show was wikiality, essentially truth is more about shared opinion instead of fact. YouTube Link [[1]] --mitrebox 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy, matey!

I made these for Severe weather terminology (United States), but y'know, they could be adapted for this template as a less military-style version... although the shapes might be awkward... anyway, somebody above (I forget who, sorry) did some magic with the templates and I'm not sure now how to make new template versions anymore... Herostratus 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, figured it out, it's placed above with the others. Herostratus 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defcon Level

I think that either the levels of vandalism are slightly elevated, or other patrollers are less active. Do you know how I can tell? I, a slowpoke, have been able to sucessfully perform many reversions today. --Gray Porpoise 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things have quieted down.

Quited? Shouldn't it be quieted? Whispering^(talk/c) 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much Better. --Sakura Avalon 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

User_talk:Yanksox/Wdefcon → Template:Wdefcon – It's not a userbox. People who turned the template into userboxes have such template code to make it into a userbox already in the userspace. Its not a userbox, it should never have been GUS'd. Even the 'main' one is technically in User:Zsinj's userspace. Its a metatemplate, and should've remained in the template space, as its not a userbox. Furthurmore, the move to userspace flew in the face of a somewhat recent TfD in may. Kevin_b_er 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Template:" or "* User:" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Template: - yes, this isn't a userbox in itself. —Xyra e l / 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a box, and it goes on userpages. Template space is for encyclopedic things, more is tolerated in userspace. That's the principle of the WP:GUS and these is no good reason why it should not be followed here. Look, some of us would like to see the damn thing deleted - some others think it's fun - so userfying it is a compromise. No, it isn't my ideal solutions (which would be deletion) no it isn't yours (which would be something else), so let's meet halfway, like on userboxes, and go back to editing. Simple. --Doc 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave in userspace. I find it useful and don't want it deleted. So having it in the userspace is the best choice. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care. Put it somewhere and stop moving it around. --Chris (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template: - more centralised, less confusing. More people will be eager to edit it, since Template: is a neutral ground, unlike User: - a certain resistance from editing others' "private" subpages is natural and would reduce the template's openness (read: usefulness). M isza 13 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User. Only because it will be likely destroyed otherwise. My understanding is that there is either a decision or a movement to delete all templates that are not used in articles? I'm not sure if that's so but there is certainly a faction that believes in that, I think. And all the more so for this template, which was mentioned in the CVU MfD as a negative thing also. Therefore it could be deleted out of hand, not going thru TfD. And it doesn't really matter whether its in userspace or template space. Of course being in userspace won't really prevent it from being deleted, either. So whatever the majority decision is is OK with me. I agree with CrazuComputer in that sense. Herostratus 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Comment I don't care, I'm just adopting this thing as it appeared to have been hit by GUS. After seeing what happening to CVU, it would seem like a good idea to userfy stuff to avoid controversy. Yank sox 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this moved?!..It has already surrived MULTIPLE TFD's. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if GUS is now policy, it can be speedy deleted with out a TfD. Herostratus 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- People fail to understand that although it is used on many user pages, its original purpose was WP:CVU. This is not a userbox and does not qualify for GUS. --Zsinj^Talk 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But with the CVU deleted it may now become a target for Speedy Delete. There has been an Anti-Vandal Delete Spree going on lately. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 12:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It just needs to be established that as xaosflux said, this template has survived several attempts to delete it. If it is speedied, I will personally speedy undelete it. (And GUS is not a "policy." It's a "just do it" which is appropriate for userboxes. --Zsinj^Talk 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]