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.
Forgive me if this has been gone over before, but why are there templates warning against moving Afd templates and speedy templates, but nothing for prod? Hairhorn (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand people are encouraged to remove prods after making the relevant changes to an entry. But people remove prods all the time without comment or changes. It's this situation that's lacking a specific template. Hairhorn (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the normal response to such a situation is to initiate an AfD. Prod is for situations where the tagger feels no one, including the creator, would challenge the request for deletion. The prod process is meant only to lower the number of AfD's, that's all. If half the prods end up being unchallenged, that's a net gain already. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "naughty behaviour", it says in the policy that all you have to do to contest a proposed deletion is remove the template; this is completely intentional, proposed deletion was introduced specifically to make the deletion process less complicated (and failed, but oh well). And even if it was, we are meant to be making an encyclopedia, not telling people off for being naughty. Gurch (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People who removed PROD templates without giving a good reason are simply being ignorant. If they cannot give a good reason why the article should stay, then they should not be able to remove templates, and doing so should constitute vandalism otherwise some people could (and do) make a habit of going around and removing PROD's for no good reason. magnius (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template warning comment editing
We have {{subst:uw-tpv1}} for warning a user that edits someone else's comments on an article talk page, and {{subst:uw-afd1}} for warning a user that edits the AFD tag on an article, but as far as I can see, nothing useful and specific for giving standard warnings to users that edit a comment on in an AFD Deletion discussion, in an RfC, or other place. Or am I missing something? --Mysidia (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, when the guideline subst: all user warning templates was put in place:
The contents of the UW templates were primarily text, with minimal markup.
The warning text was revised relatively frequently, reflecting emerging procedure.
The contents of the templates were fairly brief, generally a sentence or two.
The template mechanism itself was fairly new, and (despite the developers' statements to the contrary) there was an overall sense in the community that the server load created by the template mechanism was problematic.
In that light, it made sense to subst: the templates so that the page history would show exactly what the user had responded to.
Today, none of this is true. The template text has stabilized, and has grown to several paragraphs in many cases. Markup has become increasingly elaborate. As such, I wonder whether it might be time to revisit our insistence that these templates be subst'ed.
Just think of the consequences of vandalism on a uw- template if they are not substed. That, not the text, was the primary concern behind this insistence, and it is still as valid as ever. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason the templates shouldn't be fully protected (in the event we decide to transclude them), if they are not already. I can't imagine when they would be moved and any changes to the text can be implemented by an admin. TNXMan00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do people placing the templates read the text they subst? I would imagine not, and at the risk of WP:BEANS I would point out that subtle vandalism would likely to go unnoticed during substitution even if the template were reverted relatively quickly. The Uninvited Co., Inc.00:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One reason was pointed out to me by UninvitedCompany - you won't see this mess when you edit a user's talk page. I can see where asking a new user to know which code to replace to request an unblock would be confusing. TNXMan11:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted recent edits made on this template by two users and I'd like to address that here. The first edit I feel has added more "bite" to the template in a negative way. The second is problematic because I feel we shouldn't use the derogatory term "spamming" for the first warning. A pointer to the guidelines for external links is good enough, we don't need to make judgement calls on "spamming" unless the problem is more serious than is needed for the first warning message. I invite further discussion over these edits and my revert of them. ThemFromSpace02:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The templates say "The next time you add an inappropriate image to an article, you will be blocked from editing." Would it be more effective if it says "The next time you add an inappropriate image to Wikipedia...", if an user uploads an inappropriate image to Wikipedia but not attach it to an article? Thanks, -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Actually, I think we don't even need "to Wikipedia", since it's the obvious context. I'll do the changes now. — Sebastian15:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if exist
Today I made a typo in issuing a warning, and noticed the redlink made it into the template. I noticed it has an if exist statement... shouldn't that suppress redlinks? Example here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In English it stands for User Warning. Seriously, you can't expect us to check every language to see whether a certain acronym corresponds to a word in that language, now, can you? -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blanchardb that we cannot check each and every language to see if some letter-combination has another meaning... On the other hand: in most languages (and as far as I know also in English - although it isn't my mothertongue) people intend to use all CAPITALS or ALL lowercase if a lettercombination is used as an abrivation of an expression where the letters used are the starting letters of the words: imho for in my humble opinion, ZOZ for Zie Omme Zijde (=Dutch for PTO/Please Turn Over). I know this isn't a rule: Abrivations at the beginning of a sentence often use CAPITAL-lowercase-lowercase.... but we could consider using as rule like this to prevent comments like Larses regarding mis-interpretation of abbreviations. When you use UW-User iso Uw-User it is very hard to claim that the letter-combination UW stands for a word while Uw could be read as a word....
I'm NOT suggesting that anyone should rename all UserWarning-Templates, but we might consider this proposal for new UserWarnings... (and if Lars needs something to do on a rainy afternoon he could make himself useful:-)
It only has a capital U due to the coding of wikipedia, that made all template names capitalised at the time of their inception. I sincerely doubt many people would come to english wikipedia and mistake it for a dutch word. Creating all new warnings with a different prefix would just split the system, and create inconsitencies where none are needed. I'm sry but I believe the effort used to start a new system or rename could be more gainfully used elsewhere. Khukri14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the 1st letter is a capital due to coding techs used in Wiki, but even if it could be lowercase the remark by Lars is still valid: uw also means your in Dutch.... And I do agree that new naming systems should be discussed elsewhere- but I didn't start it, although I made a remark on a more general discussion page from the User Warning Template group (or somthing). I don't want to start that discussion myself as there are many more interesting matters to discuss or to do, nevertheless I wanted to make my remark.
I also fully agree with you that if you visit (and edit) the English Wiki you shouldn't expect Dutch words, but even if you are quite handy in reading and writing English it still looks funny if you see a word that looks Dutch but where the meaning is at least out of context. (In this specific case you could read the Dutch word and the meaning might still be correct: if someone places a Uw-Vandalism on your talkpage it often is about Your-Vandalism:the garbage YOU (notKhukri but the owner of that UserTalk page) placed... But on a more serious level: unfortunally some people are so narrow-minded that they feel offended if a letter-combination might also have another meaning in a language, eg. some extreme Republicans in the USA if a letter combination also forms a word with a sexual meaning or a body-part OR several religious people when a letter combination refers to (their) God(s), religious leaders or buildings/places... JanT (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wording
Sometimes, a user's edits violate WP:NPA, but cannot accurately be called "harassment." Therefore, I propose a change in wording from "attempting to harass other users" to "making personal attacks or attempting to harass other users." -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A very common block that I run into when doing CAT:RFU is Template:uw-spamblock. Its first sentence is, Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for promotional purposes. A lot of people blocked with this say "I'm not promoting my product/website/organization, I'm just providing information." Then someone (me?) has to politely explain to them "well, on Wikipedia, we consider 'promotion' to mean pretty much any self-listing practices", in rather the same way I have to politely explain to people that 'spam' has a specialized meaning on Wikipedia.
Perhaps we might consider alternate wording, in the same way we try to keep "sockpuppet" and other such specialized Wikipedia terms out of block notices? --jpgordon::==( o )00:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain parameter
The usage examples for substituting user warning templates show subst=subst: as the last parameter. For example:
To give greater detail to your message, you may specify: the block duration, a specific reason for the block, and auto-include your signature: {{subst:Uw-vblock|time=Duration|reason=For a different reason|sig=yes}}.
Members of this project may be interested in taking part in the discussion regarding two groups of {{uw}} templates within its purview that are currently listed at TfD. They are:
For those not familiar with the recent history of {{uw-spellcheck}}, this template was sent to TfD the day after it was restored via DRV. While I am not sure of all the details, apparently the template had been the subject of an out-of-process deletion. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be a good idea to have a warning series for placing comments on the article instead of the talk page. I have looked around quite a bit for a template of that nature but have not found anything. If it does exist, good, but if it doesn't I think it would be very helpful. I drew up a basic idea for the template myself which can be found here here. Tell me what you think.
I think you need to rework it, the talk page is not for comments about the subject of the article either. If they have general comments about the topic then there's really no place for those on wikipedia at all. Gigs (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of that notice/warning baffles me. The final 2/3 is really bitey for any new user to read, especially given this is for edits to the sandbox. There's no reason to bring up "libelous, offensive, or copyrighted material," is there? As such, I'd like to change it to something like:
Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed the information header at the Wikipedia sandbox. Don't worry, the text has been restored, so you are free to continue testing your editing skills there, but please follow the instructions stated on the page. Good luck with your editing and thank you for your co-operation.
I'm asking since it's changing the entire tone of the thing, but what I suggested is essentially cannibalized from delete1 and test1. Repeated violations of this will warrant something stronger, but I think it makes more sense to have a light-footed notice since we have heavier vandalism ones which could be used. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)22:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you ever use this template? Soxbot clears the sandbox every 5 minutes anyway and replaces the template. Of course the sandbox is absolutely useless for actually doing any testing because of Soxbot's overly agressive behavior, but I've already filed a bug report on that and I guess there's not anything else I can do. Gigs (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the TfD reference. I think I'd go the opposite way with it, instead of making it more specific, make it more general without making specific accusations. Maybe an optional parameter field where the warn-er can fill in a reason? Gigs (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to propose that the uw-vandalism series be modified to enable references to a specific edit. For instance, the second sentence of {{uw-vandalism3}} could be be changed to: "If you continue to [[WP:Vandalism|vandalize]] Wikipedia, as you did {{subst:#if:{{{2|}}}|with <span class="plainlinks">[{{{2}}} this edit]</span> |}}{{subst:#if:{{{1|}}}|to [[{{{1}}}]]|recently}}, you will be [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]." This would help provide clarity when a user vandalizes the same page multiple times, and would help in the investigation of vandalism cases.
{{{2}}} is already used for replacing the "Thank you" message at the end of the template; changing that would screw up scripts and many people's habit. Also, note that it would always be necessary to specify the "|2=" as the diff url will always be containing "=". In the past, it has been proposed (e.g. here) that a |diff= option be added to the various warning templates for that purpose instead. Anomie⚔11:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up the parameter 2 point and providing a link to the previous |diff= discussion. I couldn't decipher a reason from the previous discussion why the diff parameter was never added. Any opposition to my doing a manual addition now? As for the request in the previous discussion that the new text look like "as you did [[DIFF_LINK|here]]" instead of "as you did <span class="plainlinks">[DIFF_LINK here]</span>", I don't think there's any way this would be feasible - please let me know if I'm mistaken on this. Thanks. —Zach425talk/contribs22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I recall, the reason was "no one got around to doing it". If you're going to do it, I suggest adding it to every uw template where it makes sense rather than just the uw-v series. And yes, the diff link must be done as <span class="plainlinks">[DIFF_LINK here]</span> to function correctly. Anomie⚔23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a fun project! I'll wait a few days to ensure there are no conflicting opinions, then get started on all relevant uw templates, as you suggested. —Zach425talk/contribs02:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why uw-username fills me with the burning hate of 10,000 suns.
OK, maybe I don't care all that much about it, but I still think that we could improve this:
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
User probably has already been welcomed. This then is redundant.
Often they haven't been. But I'll allow that a welcome message to someone who's already received one is not going to get the point across as well. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I don't seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: NO REASON GIVEN. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?
This sets a very personal tone, inappropriately so. Username patrollers are often not taking a personal exception to a particular username, they are just applying policy. The invitation to discuss is inappropriate compared to the other templates, which advise a user of what the policy is. In my experience, it's also ineffective. I rarely get a response to this template, they usually head straight over to change their username, or just abandon the account entirely.
And your desired outcome is that you start talking with them? I don't see anything wrong with not getting a personal response. The latter two are probably just fine. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate learning your views, for instance, your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.
If they will accept an alternate username, they can take it over to WP:CHU. They don't need to waste time asking on their talk page first.
Yes, and if they take it over to CHU, only to find out there that it's inappropriate, they might just start seeing Wikipedia as too bureaucratic. Presumably anyone who places that template knows enough to help a user pick a new username without having to go through CHU or {{unblock-un}}. I have done this in email many times. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several options available to you:
We can talk about it, here.
You can abandon the contributions made under this name and create a new account that meets our username policy and addresses the concern(s) noted above.
Or, if you want to keep your contributions history under a new name, then you should visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the instructions there.
This bulleted list is the core message of the template. They can defend their choice, just make a new account, or take it to CHU. We should endeavor to present these three options in a more concise manner.
If we can't resolve this on our own, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process. Thanks.
This whole bit needs to go away. I have never felt like I have had anything approaching a "dispute" with anyone that I have tagged with uw-username. Taking it to dispute resolution would be entirely inappropriate, and we shouldn't even bring it up here. It's vaguely threatening as well, it's almost like saying "if we can't settle this then I'll see you in court". I don't think that's the vibe we want to put off. Gigs (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I've explained the RFCN process to people, they invariably seem to prefer it to having one person (me, or a bureaucrat) rule on their choice of name. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How's this, as a draft rewrite to spur discussion:
I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: NO REASON GIVEN. Although we have a formal process for discussing usernames of concern, I wanted to raise this with you privately first. Would you mind looking over that policy and discussing my concerns? If I better understood your reasons for wanting this particular name, my concerns might be mollified, or alternatively, perhaps there's an alternative username you might accept instead?
If you're amenable to changing your username, there are two options:
You can abandon the contributions made under this name and create a new account that meets our username policy and addresses the concern(s) noted above.
Or, if you want to keep your contributions history under a new name, then you should visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the instructions there.
Thanks.
”
That eliminates most of what you objected to. It also softens the implicit threat in the last paragraph and moves it into the first paragraph.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's slightly better, but I had in mind something more like:
"Hello and welcome. I noticed that your username may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because NO REASON GIVEN. If, after reviewing that policy, you believe your username does not violate policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you could file for a change of username, or you can simply create a new account and start using that one instead. Thank you."
I support Dank on this one. The new proposal is better, but I'd stay away from RFCN entirely in the template. Just tell them exactly what they need to do. If they don't want to make a change, it's up to the patroller to go to RFCN. I think it goes without saying that if they ignore this message there will be repercussions. UncleDouggie (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, keep the mention of RFCN. Odds are that a new user who's not a sock will have no idea this process exists, and if they go to the trouble of picking a new name, only to find the patroller then takes it to this kangaroo court they had no idea existed, they might just feel a little bitten. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<-I'd like to also point out that there's only been 9 RFCN cases since this time in July. The chance of a name going to RFCN is extremely small. Gigs (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we need to let them know all the options available to them. Just because it's used minimally does not mean we should stop making people aware of it. I fail to see the logic, and I think removing a mention of RFC/N may actually come across as more bite-y than not. Daniel Case (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and formatted in bold the "Welcome" part, as well as added a comma to separate "hello" from the rest of the introductory sentence. In addition, I have removed the colon after "because" [because] it doesn't introduce a list, but an explanation or rationale. As part of my change, I would like to introduce an image to call attention to it. A good ol' , , , or even to draw attention to this template. It's way too personal and not enough, "hello, I really need for you to read this" -y. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say03:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monthly limits on allowable vandalism considered overly tolerant for individual
I think that having monthly tolerance on individual vandals does not appear to make sense to me. Monthly tolerance does make sense for corporate accounts, schools, libraries, that sort of thing. Four per month seems a little tight, but then, they can tighten up on security too, if they care.
Having monthly limits for individuals seems silly. Just ran across an essentially vandal-only account who has been vandalizing three articles a month. For quite a while. He's discovered out tolerance. Letting him vandalize several dozen articles a year seems foolish IMO. I'm not sure when we switched to broad limits to individuals but I wish they would stop. Four a year is plenty for a single user IMO. Student7 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Obvious vandalism-only accounts will be blocked even with one edit per year, if no constructive edits appear in the account's contributions list. That's even without a level-4 warning.
I'm sure there will be administrators who will decline to block "slow" vandals, but even they will not undo a block done by another administrator in situations like this. Long-term vandalism patterns, including the kind you mention here, can be reported at WP:LONG. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you should keep in mind that for those of us who have edit counts in the thousands, four questionable edits per year sets the bar a bit too high IMO. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It turned out it was an corporate account not subject (IMO only) to annual limits, so I backed off on my level 4 (to a 3 for the month). I use the tab to communicate level 4+ vandals. Haven't had trouble with it up until now. I have 25k+ edits. I doubt I have 4 total "vandal" accusations made against me over the years, and those mostly from annoyed newbies who didn't like their povs reverted! But yes, other contributions should be taken into consideration. Most heavy editors have a large discussion page and (therefore) archives which would bury vandal accusations after a few months! :)
There are middle schoolers who do nothing but vandalize, but only a few times a month. I would like to see them kicked off for increasing periods. Up to now, most admins have seen the wisdom of that. The period of exclusion is up to them, anyway. But automatically recycling to level 1 at the start of each month for an individual user, still seems dumb to me. We have a process for dealing with vandals. Why not use it? They used to be the bane of Wikipedia. i'm sure we used to lose good editors in the early years who just gave up after it drove them nuts. We now have vandals at bay IMO. Let's keep it that way! Student7 (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that any administrator would consider that at 00:00 on the first of each month evert warning ever issued goes back to oblivion. Any good administrator or patroller would issue a level 4 warning without hesitation at 00:03 on the first of a new month if the user's latest warning was a level 3 issued at 23:58 on the last day of the previous month. I don't see that there is any problem currently. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The idea that vandals have an "allowance" of four edits per month is a complete fallacy. I for one will block vandals editing at that rate. Certainly, when I see a consistent stream of vandalism over the year, that will influence my decision on whether or not to block and for how long. It is the general practice amongst admins to double the length of the block on each occassion for IPs, but for vandalism-only accounts there is no point in anything but an indefinite block. There are however, a number of other things to take into consideration when blocking an IP. The most important is to make a judgement on whether this is the same vandal returning or if it could be someone completely unconnected. Some idea can be found from a WHOIS enquiry and from editing habits, but if in doubt, the principle of AGF requires us to assume the latter, in which case it is quite right to "reset the counter". Another point is that a large proportion of vandal warnings are issued by bots who are not in a position to make such fine judgements and will always reset (most of them within a week I think) and will always go through warnings 1-2-3-4-report. A human editor does not need to do this, I will sometimes upgrade a warning given by a bot or even issue a block. Non-admin users are also free to upgrade bot warnings when appropriate.
It is also a misconception that you are obliged to give all four warnings in sequence, the bots do this, but humans are under no such restriction. Level 1 and level 2, to my mind, are alternatives, not increments. They are the same more or less except level 1 says "welcome to Wikipedia". If there is already a welcome message on the page, then level 2 is appropriate. If the welcome message was part of a warning, then level 3 would be appropriate. For a vandal that is clearly on a spree, one should shortcut to level 4 or 4im regardless of what previous warnings have been given. It is also worth noting that blocking is preventative, not punative, so we only block when the vandalism is current, never for something that happened a week ago. I often come to IP pages and see a bunch of edits and warnings for the previous month, which in my opinion, should have resulted in a block, but I will still not block unless there is something now that is blockable.
Schools are particularly problematic. The vandalism can be high, but against that there are a large number of users in schools. We are under an obligation not to punish innocent users with broad brush blocks. Nevertheless, I am probably more willing to give lengthy blocks to schools than most admins. I take the view that it is our job to protect the encyclopedia and the school's job (not ours) to police what their pupils are doing on their computers. But I will only do this if I can see nothing but vandalism in the history, even one good edit from the school will cause me to draw back from a long block (although I might still do a short one to stop an immediate problem).
Also, keep in mind that corporate accounts are subject to indefinite blocks by virtue of being corporate accounts. That's even when they haven't made a single edit. See WP:USERNAME. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be "nice" to see Spinningspark's remarks recast (or merged, since there probably is one already) into an essay on dealing with vandalism. Or do we not want to be too obvious about this? Nothing wrong with changing the "essay" as conditions or opinions change. This is about as good an explanation as I have seen in compact form. Student7 (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Icons
I notice templates that use the phrasing "please stop" (level 3) seem still to use the triangle "warning" icon . Wouldn't an actual stop icon be better? Eg . (That icon is currently used for Level 4; maybe we can find something more dramatic for that... a mushroom cloud icon perhaps??) Rd232talk08:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, does the CSD nomination notice need to use the warning icon? It's quite large, too, and dominates the page, perhaps over vandalism warnings. Maybe an info icon would be enough? Or perhaps something specifically illustrating deletion, like ? Rd232talk08:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "mushroom cloud" would just be ridiculous, and inventing special icons for random warnings would destroy the unity of the warning templates and lead to useless visual clutter. Anomie⚔16:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe a mushroom cloud is a bad idea (though I'd still vote for it for an indef-block template, say...). However, using specific icons which illustrate the general point the text makes is, on the contrary, a very useful part of user interfaces. It would aid communication if delete-related warnings had an appropriate icon (I'm thinking of a page heading into a bin). We wouldn't want too excessive a menagerie of icons, but one generic icon type for each of a few clear, agreed categories would enhance communication. Rd232talk17:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the major user interface served by the icons is for someone to look down the talk page to see at a glance what levels of warnings the person has been given. Anomie⚔21:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's exactly where I started off when posting. CSD warn templates have a massive warning triangle. Level 3 notices have a small one! Rd232talk22:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present system is fine. Adding trash cans, mushroom clouds, etc etc seem to me to be gimmicks, suggesting the template has been designed someone who likes to play at inventing amusing pictures, rather than someone who wants to concentrate on the job of improving the encyclopedia. It would convey quite the wrong message to vandals who are here to play. The statement that "using ... icons which illustrate the general point the text makes is a very useful part of user interfaces" is too broad a generalisation. It depends on what user interface you are talking about, and what you want to communicate. Sometimes that is true, as for example where there is a string of icons to perform various tasks, and an illustrative icons shows immediately which is which. In this case, however, the point to communicate to the nuisance is "this will not continue to be accepted", which does not require icons which amusingly illustrate the particular type of unacceptability. At the same time there is a need to communicate what levels of warnings have been given, and the present system does this very well. Also the warning triangle and the raised hand both convey the message "damned well pay attention" much better than a trash can. As for CSD notices, there may be a case for making the icons smaller, but there is more urgency about them than about user space warning messages. A Speedy deletion notice says "such and such a page is about to be deleted unless you take action now, whereas a warning "you will be blocked if at some time in the future you choose to continue with your pattern of editing, while just as important, is less urgent. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uw-promotionalarticle
Hi, I created {{uw-promotionalarticle}} for the creation of promotional articles (i.e. WP:CSD#G11 articles), because {{uw-advert1}} etc talk about adding content to existing articles. It's been suggested though that maybe changing the existing template would be preferable to creating a new one. Thoughts? Rd232talk13:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the reference to "soapbox"ing in uw-advert1 seems more like to confuse than to educate the average recipient. Rd232talk13:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion and advertising are not just discouraged, they are against policy WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:PROMOTION. I expect "soapboxing" crept into the template because they are both in the "soapbox" section of the policy, although I agree that is a confusing mixture of two different sins. Before changing templates, you should consider how this will affect Twinkle (there is Huggle as well but I think that has its own copies of the templates). You could make the same argument for any of the series of templates, that they are about additions rather than article creations, so I don't see the point of picking on promotion in particular. There are already generic templates fro article creation Template:Uw-create1 etc which can be used for this. SpinningSpark16:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I'm not sure how one would go about improving the template. It's already rather short; something would have to be added to replace the sandbox part. Any suggestions? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your recent edits (to) (ARTICLE: OPTIONAL PARAM) appear to be defamatory and have been reverted. Thank You." Gigs (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be a multi-level set of warning templates, for making edits that defy the consensus on the talk page. and possibly a variant on them. for refusing to participate in the discussion to justify their edits. Several times, I've encountered editors, that repeatedly made edits, they thought were right, even when they were overruled by the consensus. None of the current templates really fits that situation well. ... Misty Willowstalk17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have a user warning template that would say (in effect):
I have added an {{Unreferenced}} tag to [name of article], an article you have created or worked on. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
The tag would use ingredients from {{uw-unsourced1}} and {{AFDNote}} so that Twinkle could offer the option of adding it to the creator's user talk page when adding an {{Unreferenced}} tag to an article. I realize that I can use {{uw-unsourced1}}, but it doesn't say quite what I want to say to the creator of an article that needs references added to it. That is, I want to say "Please add references" rather than "Don't add unreferenced material". – Eastmain (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are times when people add material that just doesn't belong. Recently, an IP kept adding unreferenced material to Georgia's 8th congressional district about an obscure person who announced his candidacy for the 2010 election. There is no article on this person, and the addition went on and on explaining who that person was, to the point of having the whole article sound like a promotion for that candidate. Of course, no reference was included. When I removed the mention of another possible unknown candidate from that article, the additions stopped. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New idea! Comment please! :)
Ok, so me being the wikiholic that I am, was thinking about how to better deter vandals from wanting to want to vandalize our project. Well I was thinking about what makes people want to vandalize. Well, what if we also inserted something like an emoticon such as :) for the "general note" (level 1) and "caution" (level 2) template for vandals? The way I see it: People vandalize. They want the negative attention. Generally speaking, the level 1 (AGF) and level 2 (no faith assumed; caution) templates should help make them feel that "it's okay" and thus with something like :) (after the "Welcome to Wikipedia" phrase or after the word "Please" in the level 2 template) it would further push the friendly "welcome to Wikipedia" message so that they may make constructive edits, or find something better to do and thus aren't getting the negative attention. The level 3 and 4 templates I think don't need an emoticon as they are straight to the point. I think it's worth a try? Thanks for listening. Tom A8UDI20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lvl 1 templates I think tend to represent "I'm not sure you're actually being a dick so I'm not going to yell at you, just let you know that's not okay", and lvl 2 has no assumption of faith. On really blatant bad-faith I usually start with lvl 3 templates and I don't think I'm the only one. Peter Deer (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe people vandalize to get negative attention from us, the editors. Instead, I think they just do it because their friends will find it funny, or other readers will see it. I don't think emoticons would be very encyclopedic either... Eugeniu B+119:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks are useful in that they point out articles that should be created. But generally, redlinks are to be avoided in see also sections and lists of notable people. In the births and deaths sections of articles about dates on the calendar, redlinks are automatically removed by bot, as they are usually inserted by people wanting to point out their own birthday. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to add an argument "{{{username}}}" so that it is not necessary to use {{uw-username}} in addition to this template, if there are no objections. Basically, this argument will also include a statement or two stating a user's username may be promotional (but not quite so to warrant a UAA report), and recommending a change of username. I know what I am doing and am unlikely to break the template, but if I do, please quickly revert it (if I don't revert it myself first). Intelligentsium22:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles vandalized?
What should I do if say, a user vandalized two articles consecutively without being warned? Should I add the first and second warning templates, or just add one warning template to the user's talk page about the last vandalism? Orrr should I add two level one warning templates in order to exemplify both articles? Eugeniu B+102:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Start with level two, would be my suggestion. Of course, if these were tests, you might want to AGF and give a level 1. However, do not issue multiple warnings; this serves no purpose, as the user is not given a chance to see the previous warnings and stop. Intelligentsium03:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External Links Spam Section is Broken
The "external links spam" section appears to be broken. The table includes an unwanted third column, and there are flaws in the Wikicode. Looking at the "what it makes" column in the table, it appears a [[]] link is not closed, throwing off a lot of subsequent code. I'd bet this is the cause of the odd table appearance, but looking at the code for the templates themselves, I can't see any obvious errors. Anyone else have any ideas? -RadicalOne---Contact Me00:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "||" in the category link was being interpreted as table markup. Why do we even have those categories in the first place? Anomie⚔01:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed Template:uw-userpage in the same fashion that we changed uw-username in order to shorten and modernize it. There is still some kind of bug when you use the new version with twinkle, the "reason" field gets appended on the end in italics even though it is no longer at the end and is instead inserted as a clause earlier. It works this way, so we can leave it for now, but we probably want to get that fixed sometime soon. Gigs (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the word "unconstructive"
Should this template be changed to use the word "nonconstructive" instead of "unconstructive"? Is "unconstructive" a proper word? Firefox's automatic spell checker says it's an incorrect word. It's not included in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.[1] It's not included in the Cambridge Dictionary.[2] It's not included in the MSN Dictionary.[3] It's not included in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary that is sitting on my desk, albeit an old dictionary. It seems that the definitions that exist on the WordReference.com dictionary[4] TheFreeDictionary.com[5] only serve as common sense contrivance of a definition of a word ("not constructive"). Is it technically incorrect to use "unconstructive", with "nonconstructive" being the actual correct word?--Abusing (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that it exists, but it seems like more of slapping a prefix onto a word. If "unconstructive" is not in many dictionaries, which use "nonconstructive" instead (both words do have the same meaning) I'm simply suggesting that "non" is the correct word, with "unconstructive" being more of an informal use. Compare this to "uncivil". You would generally use "uncivil" instead of "incivil" and "noncivil", yet all three words exist on Wiktionary. All three words exist, do they not? However, you should simply use the most correct form of the word, should you not?--Abusing (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the language for this should be softened as it doesn't assume good faith at all. I just got slapped with one of these for this edit [6] leading to this discussion: [7]. --NeilNtalk to me23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People keep adding their business listings in the hopes of drawing customers, and we keep telling them not to do it here. {{uw-bizlist}} suggests they take it to Wikia's Yellowikis instead. Maybe with someplace to actually go, fewer will keep trying to sneak under the gate here.
No, for several reasons. The most obvious is that most users are accoustomed to signing after templated messages, so this would cause some confusion at first. Almost all templated messages do not feature the included signature, so we will either have to change all of them, or not change them at all; only changing the vandalism series will cause incredible confusion. Less obviously, sometimes users forget to substitute these messages, which will result in the four tildes being displayed raw, rather than expanded. An additional note: the orthography you suggest will not work; the tildes will be expanded as the signature of whomever put them to the original template when the template is transcluded. An orthography that will work is ~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly>. Intelligentsium03:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some people (like me) sign with --~~~~, which I think used to be the preferred way in the editor documentation and used to expand "--" to "—" also, but doesn't seem to now. Lots of editors (even on this page itself) use this form. I just encountered a userspace welcome template moments ago that already included the tildes (and a return and space to boot), mangling my --~~~~ on the end. --Closeapple (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, it requires more characters (and hence more keystrokes) to type |sig=yes than it does ~~~~. However, this could be an option on templates (such as certain welcome templates) which use the signature in a place other than the end of the post. Intelligentsium20:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before you go ahead with anything like this you may want to look way way way back in the archives, as this was all discussed when we created the templates and the reasons why and eventual why we didn't. Also I would look to go to centralised discussion with a change along these lines. Khukri22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of sourced information
I can't see that we have a suitable warning for when someone removes information from an article which is appropriately sourced. The page blanking/removal of content warning isn't quite what I find I'm looking for. __meco (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to communicate that isn't in the uw-delete* templates? If it's highly specific, you can tell that editor about that case using the "additional text" parameter at {{uw-delete1}}: "{{subst:uw-delete1|Article|Additional text|subst=subst:}} adds text onto the end of the message instead of 'Thank you'". If it would be more generally useful, perhaps a new template should be created. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes solidly sourced information can still be removed legitimately over a WP:ROC concern, that is, the information fits much better in another article. Sometimes also, it can be removed over a WP:UNDUE concern.
I think I agree. If it can't be addressed with a uw-delete template, then it probably is the type of situation that calls for a personal message rather than a template.--Kubigula(talk)19:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Probably" — in the absence of details about what Meco wants to say — but I'd still like to know, just in case (even improbably) there's something worth saying often enough to make another template useful. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if some suicide prevention group might already have some kind of guidance for netizens on this point already that could be adapted, or if not, whether it might be better to ask them for a suggestion? There have been attempts to address it before e.g. Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Шизомби (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The vast number of so-called 'suicide threats' that are posted are just the poster trolling because he knows it'll get a response from you. HalfShadow22:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if even once it turns out to be genuine, and our response is found (by inquest) to have contributed to an actual suicide....? The potential liability in that event pretty much demands careful attention from legal staff. We volunteers of scattered backgrounds should not be expected to respond both spontaneously and correctly. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody will ever suicide for something so trivial as by something that took place at a web page. In any case it can be the circunstancial excuse, but any background study would soon show divorces, social rejection, drugs adictions, or other real causes of suicide. MBelgrano (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Templated warnings were only meant as a standardised response for every day occurrences such as vandalism etc, they were never foreseen as a substitute for situations where a personal message is/was required. For something so specialised as suicide notes, to slap a templated message/warning on a user page, whether it was trolling or genuine would be contrary to the very nature of the UW templates. One does not issue a UW warning when someone may or maynot be requiring help. For the average editor something along these lines should be go direct to direct to WP:ANI do not pass go and do not collect $200. There are enough admins there with experience dealing with these issues. I would suggest, someone with the best intention in the world using this template could create far more damage than it resolves. Regards Khukri15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the way to handle the situation. Suicide threats need personalised attention, not a fire-and-forget template. Also the proposed template is very cold-hearted, which is not the way to go about responding to a suicide threat. ThemFromSpace17:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two templates, {{test}} and {{uw-test1}} which I believe are for basically similar circumstances. What are the specific criteria for each one? Similaly, there are stronger pairs {{test2}} and {{uw-test2}} etc.; so why are two sets necessary?
Further, the documentation for {{uw-test1}} suggests to use |subst=subst: whereas that for {{test}} doesn't, even though it recognises the |subst= parameter. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrose64 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 26 December 2009
There is a part of the syntax which does not make sense to me. {{{1}}} is a required parameter, so why do you have the conditional {{#if:{{{1|}}}|figures), as you have to the article [[:{{{1}}}]],|figures)}}? I would also suggest linking to the template {{Unreferenced}}, as well as a brief note something like: "especially when adding even remotely contentious information to biographies of living persons." Intelligentsium22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I would change Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia to Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia which hopefully seems a little less cold and institutional and more welcoming. I'd also change but when you add content to but when adding content so it reads as less of a direct fault of the editor's and more applicable to everyone (which it is). And it might be worth swapping if you change for for and removing the semi-redundant for the content you're adding or changing although those are both more aesthetic preferences (especially the latter). I'd also change the image, which is definitely too harsh for one of the easiest and most forgivable of offenses. The usual File:Ambox blue question.svg or File:Information icon4.svg would be nice. ~ Amory(u • t • c)23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect vandalism repair is a distressingly common occurrence in Wikipedia. In my opinion, {{Uw-removevandalism}} is currently too vaguely worded. It doesn't actually tell people that they've made a blunder, it just talks about the problem in the abstract. Obviously we want to put the user straight in the nicest possible way, but we do want the message to get through, don't we? Is there any way we could we make the wording a bit more explicit? How about:
Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from <article name>. This is greatly appreciated, but unfortunately your repair was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history and restoring either the whole article or the relevant parts to an appropriate earlier version. If you just manually remove the visible vandalism then any earlier content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for further details. Thank you.
Also, is there any way we could have an optional parameter so that a link to the diff where the vandalism was removed can be provided? If it happened a long time ago then the user might not exactly remember what they did. 81.156.127.29 (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Folks, the tags for uw-spam reading "Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings" are, to the best of my knowledge, the last time that, as a Webmaster, I had to research, are technically incorrect, because various search engines ignore the "nofollow" tags.
It may be in the best of all possible causes -- to thwart spammers -- but Wikipedia should not misrepresent on an official level.
That seasoned spammers are also likely to know the mechanics of nofollow tags ... well ... I'd rather stick with the argument that it's technically incorrect that external links don't alter ratings. Sincerely, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Define "most". The handful of major search engines respect them, and the long tail of many search engines is of extremely limited relevance in terms of proportion of all search queries made. Rd232talk20:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a common enough problem to justify a template of its own. I don't think {{uw-wrongsummary}} would be correctly used in this instance, as that implies that the user's edit summaries were misrepresenting the nature of the edits. Therefore, just leave the IP a personal message about the issue if the problem persists. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
uw-npov2,3,4
I templated someone with uw-npov2 when they were removing coverage of a point of view, and I wound up removing the template because it's so ill fitting. Template:uw-npov2 and higher seem to assume that the NPOV violation was the addition of original and unencyclopedic commentary. We already have Template:uw-nor2 et al for original research. You all think anyone will be too shocked if we rewrite the uw-npov series to be more generic? Gigs (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
uw-advert1 says "Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged" - shouldn't this be something like "not permitted"? (The welcomespam template says "Wikipedia does not allow advertising".) Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer something along the lines of 'Fuck off, you spammy little oik', myself, but there's that whole 'no personal attacks' thing. HalfShadow20:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the template; It now reads as follows:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Much better. "strongly discouraged" is a bit of an understatement. We don't allow people to use WP for advertising period. Chillum(Need help? Ask me)21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Uw-removevand"
I'm considering moving the template {{uw-removevandalism}} to the name pointed out in the header so it isn't too long. Are there any objections? I'll accept any objections, if they at least generate consensus. Thanks! Schfifty322:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some changes to the {{uw-voablock}} page, which included fixing up grammar and moving things around to make it look better. Baseball1015 (talk·contribs), who made a trio of edits about half an hour ago, reverted my last edit without explaining why; the latter two is not relevant to this topic. Am I using incorrect grammar, or am I violating the Manual of Style guidelines? I notified him about the revert afterwards. Schfifty322:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I once saw a blocked sockpuppet say something along the lines of "But but but I didn't vandalize with THIS account! What'd I do wrong?" The new wording would seem to encourage such an attitude. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most vandals don't strike me as very smart or creative. I don't think there should be any suggestion that it's even technically possible to have more than one account, unless we know the user has already figured that out. It may seem obvious to me and you, but to someone who thinks that adding "GAY!!!!!" to twenty articles is a demonstration of their supreme wittiness, it may not be so clear. Wikipedia (by necessity of its privacy policy) has rather limited defenses against sockpuppetry. Users who are determined to disrupt Wikipedia will create many accounts whether we like it or not, and will stop reading block notices after a while. For casual "drive by" vandals, I think it's best to leave the functioning of Wikipedia as spooky and mysterious as possible, in the hope that they will get bored and go bother someone else before they figure out how to evade the block. Hence, confusing "you" and "your account", while technically incorrect, is actually a good thing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get lost, jerk. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because you are a vandal. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block, but after what you've done, we're not likely to believe you.
Ah, I'm usually the one who gets into issues for using their teeth. Perhaps this message?
Your access to Wikipedia has been terminated. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because you have abused the Wikipedia policy by making only unconstructive edits. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block, but you should be aware the evidence is not in your favor.
As per the WP:ILLEGIT subsection of the official policy on Sock puppetry, "policies apply per person, not per account." With this in mind —as well as the WP:BEANSy nature of "your account" instead of "you"— I have gone ahead and changed the template back to its prior phrasing. Given the fact that {{uw-voablock}} is a heavily used template that is, by its very nature, substituted, we should probably discuss and achieve consensus on changes prior to implementing them. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usage documentation
Is there a page that discusses which template to use for various cases, such as {{uw-test1}} vs {{uw-vandalism1}}, and when are the 4im ones appropriate? Should there be a link to that page either on the documentation pages for the individual templates and/or on the category page?
I think the header of the section Multi-level templates sums it up pretty well, although I'd say 4im templates should be used only for users with a previous history of disruption or where there is strong (but not compelling) evidence of sockpuppetry. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use your judgement. If the edit is simply "bob was here" in a random location, it was likely a test edit, and thus the {{uw-vandalism1}} would be appropriate. Had the edit contained something rude - "bob sucks crap" or something - I normally jump straight to {{uw-vandalism2}}. And if the edit is profane - "[CENSORED] - I go for {{uw-bv}}. As for 4im levels, I have never actually had to use one; I suppose they would be for vandals who stop for a time and return, or for extremely severe and obviously bad-faith - posting copyrighted material, libel with the intent of defamation, etc - disruption. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail01:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions
Any attempt by this editor to fix a template will likely be reckless instead of bold, so I offer two suggestions:
Sorry, I didn't realize that I was redirected to this talk from Template talk:uw-username so I didn't bother putting the name of the template. Since redirects in talk only are uncommon (and the notice is rather small), how about a nice, friendly edit notice asking folks to include the name of the template they're commenting upon?--otherlleft17:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since these sorts of warning templates are designed to be grouped under month headers, adding an automatic header would kind of defeat the purpose. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing people use warning templates templates that allow them to insert a link to the dif of the edit in question. Is that a template on Wikipedia or something in Twinkle or some other Wiki editting program? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a list of templates that do have that facility? None of the warning messages on this page have that in their documentation, including the one for test edits. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a list; I came across the {{test}} template on another user's page, in his list of frequently-used templates. It's also mentioned on WP:VANDAL. The thing is, I believe that {{test}} is quite old: {{uw-test1}} is preferred nowadays - but that doesn't have the diff feature. There is an old list at WP:TT. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Useful new MediaWiki feature coming soon(-ish)
Once r61710 is live, we can replace {{{subst|}}} with <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly> and have the extra substing be automatically applied without having to remember to add |subst=subst: to the template invocation. If no one else volunteers to AWB it, poke me when that happens and I'll run some script-assisted edits. Anomie⚔02:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What it says is probably hard enough.
My suggestion is not changing up the main dialogue of the template.
Your account has been blocked indefinitely(bl) because it has become apparent that it is being used only for vandalism(c). Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane; threatens, attacks, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
This account, Template index/User talk namespace, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username may be interpreted as a blatant violation of our username policy to some users. Blatant violations may meet the criteria for a stronger block.
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:
Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
Is this wrong, or am I just being stupid? (If I am, sorry!)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
If replacing "BASEPAGENAME" (Template index/User talk namespace) with "subst:BASEPAGENAME" (Template messages) proves successful, then it should be replaced in the soft block template in case there are users who request to change their usernames. Some might get confused and think the initial block was an error. View the source code in this comment for proof. mechamind9000:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation for blocking templates comes from the boilerplate doc at Template:Blocksnotice. As this particular template seems to be intended only for blocking vandals whose modus operandi is removing content from pages, a reason parameter does not seem necessary. Another {{#switch:...}} could be put into the core documentation template Template:Blocksnotice/inner to omit | reason = on certain block notices, just as | time = is already omitted on some of them, or a {{{reason|}}} parameter could be added. Intelligentsium23:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warning for adding comments?
I was wondering what kind of warning should be used for users or IP addresses adding comments (about the subject matter) to pages. I don't think it really fits any of the warnings here, because it's not really vandalism (at least in my opinion). NotAnonymous0 (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the email address should be removed. ANyone making a threat is blocked and remains so until they retract it (as you said). If they need to contact the Foundaton for legal purposes, they need to do it in writing anyway, so giving them an email address only slows down that process. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe00:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please remove it. info-en volunteers have nothing to do with legal anything and telling people to email them does absolutely nothing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really recall why I changed the wording (wow, it is old). What comes to mind is that many legal blocks are bad blocks. Most of the time, admins run like headless chickens as soon as someone starts saying that they might want to talk to their attorney to check whether there is a legal issue. Many people who write that are people who think our content is libeling them, and having someone from the quality team checking it with a cold head is better than having content that we shouldn't be proud of (and an angry visitor). The legal block was made to prevent people from bullying other editors, not to show them the door because they used the "L word". Finally, I don't think that many people contact OTRS when blocked for legal reasons (at lease, not many did back in the days), I don't think the extra burden here and there is that much of an issue. Remember that this is a big deal. We are showing the door to someone without any warning. Tempers (on both sides) rise high in these cases. -- Luktalk09:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS isn't charged with investigating bad blocks of any kind. And again, OTRS volunteers having nothing to do with potential legal issues. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not our job, we don't want it. There is much to do without it. We don't have any authority with blocks, and no mandate with regard to legal issues. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you wish guys, I don't plan to be blocked anyway ;). It was an attempt to make the process a little bit less "kafka-ish". -- Luktalk08:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweak the templates
Perhaps {{BASEPAGENAME}} could be changed to {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}} because we might not be able to see positive contributions from them if they changed their name? If it is accepted, it could be done all around, particularly the Welcome templates. mechamind9016:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone a recent edit to uw-copyright. While consistency is nice, unlike most other warning templates this one truly can be appropriate years after the fact, so "recent" is not a good word. I myself used it for copyright problems that are years old. Also, "reverted" has a special meaning on Wikipedia; since sometimes only the copyrighted content is removed, I think that the wording introduced in June 2009 is more appropriate. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must address the other concern now. One argues that copyvios are, on some occasions, newly created pages. The reason why I oppose that rationale is because if it is a newly created page and not just an addition (edit) to an existing page, then we would use the appropriate speedy deletion notification template, which is {{Db-g12}}. -- IRP☎17:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what other concern you mean. You altered:
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder.
to read:
The recent edit you made has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder.
Oh, I see. You're talking about the edit summary. That language was introduced about nine months ago, and it doesn't seem to have caused any confusion with WP:CSD#G12. Whatever the reason for the alteration of text, it seems like a good one that has been unchallenged aside from the quite proper removal of the word "recent" in October. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template too harsh?
I think that this warning is too harsh (i.e. not enough good faith) for Level 1. I thought that all Level 1 templates assumed good faith and includes a "Welcome to Wikipedia" as the first sentence. I'm thinking of modifying this (as I'm an autoconfirmed user) to make this less strict and more friendly, but I would like to discuss this with other users to see what they think of this template.
OK, I copied a part of the source of this template. This is what the warning looks like at the moment.
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, it appears you may be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Thank you.
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. It appears you are engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.
Please stop undoing other people's edits. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.
This is the final warning that you are receiving regarding your disruptive reverts. If you engage in another edit war, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.
This is the only warning that you are receiving regarding your disruptive reverts. If you engage in another edit war, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.
Here's my opinion about your rewording of the warning templates:
For Level 1, fulfills my request, so I'm putting it in. Not entirely sure about the "neutral point of view" bit. Maybe we should replace the "it appears you are engaged in an edit war" with "we would like to remind you not to undo other people's edits, without explaining why in an edit summary."
For Level 2, my suggestion is to replace the "It appears that you are engaged in an edit war" with "It appears that you may be engaged in an edit war".
For Level 3, this is technically the final warning, as the user has reverted a third time and needs a fourth to be blocked. So we could replace the "continue" with "revert again".
For Level 4, I'm sticking with the current one, as mentioned in my Level 3 statement, and possibly add "According to the excessive number of reverts you made" as a starting sentence. I'm not sure if an only warning is necessary for this 3rr thing, as we already have a {{Uw-3rr}} template.
Following a recent conversation about blanking and potential BLP issues, I'm dropping by to see if there's any opinion on whether we should and how we could tweak this template to perhaps help individuals with BLP concerns know where to take them. Should we link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem? Or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help? Sometimes blanking is done to deal with blatant and obvious issues, but sometimes issues are not that easily visible to people who are unfamiliar with the subject. Thoughts most welcome. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As i stated on my talk page just a minute earlier i would support such a change. Frankly, so far two options have been voiced: A separate template, or a modification of the level 1 delete template. Both idea's have its own merits. Adding it to the blanking templates would almost certainly guarantee a 100% reach, but at the same time it might be prone to imitators and false positives. A separate template would require manual addition, but would likely cause less errors.
Regardless, i propose a change in both the level 1 and 2 template as they assume good and neutral faith. Vandalism software such as Huggle automatically detects the appropriate warning level, so if the user already receives a level 1 warning, he or she would not be notified of the BLP issue. To emphasize: Pressing Q in huggle will revert with a standard vandalism warning, while a blank template requires a few extra clicks. Vand1 templates for blanking are therefor to be expected. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if accepted, the template will not use unblock-spamun in it, rather it will use unblock-unhard or something along those lines.
For (Vaublock) below
The account you created has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated.
If you intend to make useful contributions in the future, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it by doing the following:
Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} below this message box.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked.
Okay, I change my mind about the one above, as it sorta defeats the purpose.
For (UsernameHardBlocked) below
The account you created has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated.
If you intend to make useful contributions in the future, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it by doing the following:
Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} below this message box.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked.
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that it is being used only for trolling, disruption or harassment. Your edits also appear to be reflected by your username, which is a blatant violation of our username policy. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions.
But that can be confusing. In the case where a user name (let's say 3Jq4PAVP) has been blocked indefinitely or for a long time, and the user then resorts to editing with a multi-user IP, the IP will generally be blocked for a short time (say, 2 days). So what the message should really say is something like
Once the block of 3Jq4PAVP has expired the editor who was using that user name is welcome to make constructive contributions. Other persons are welcome to make constructive contributions with this IP address when the 2 day block has expired.
An article on my watchlist was edited many times by an editor using an IP address; the editor claims he/she is welcome to continue using the IP address because the administrator who left a uw-block1 message on a sockpuppet IP address said the editor was welcome to resume editing after the block expired, despite the fact that the user name that had also been used remained indefinitely blocked. Jc3s5h (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found it somewhat strange that the word "will" is the emphasized word in these level 4 and 4im templates. It would seem to me that "blocked" or "blocked from editing" is where the emphasis should be. Thus by my proposition, the typical level 4 warning would look like this:
This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.
That seems to place emphasis in the proper place - that the next step is a block. The emphasis on "will" always struck me as odd, since it puts the emphasis there rather than on the actual action. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to work, though I'd add a "that" to it, to say, "This is the final warning that you are receiving for your disruptive edits." I'll give it a few more days, and if no one has any strong objections, I'll change the templates. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I think about it, considering that blocking doesn't always necessarily happen, let's drop "will" entirely, and change the wording to more closely match that of Template:Uw-bv to say:
This is the final warning that you are receiving for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further warning.
That seems to address the various rough spots in these templates, and doesn't tie anyone's hands so that they can use their best judgement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. nitpicking again, but it may not necessarily be the final warning. So maybe "This is a final warning regarding..." ? –xenotalk19:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't been here in a long time, but saw this on the watch list so thought give my tuppence. There is should be very little ambiguity in templates and if they were applied correctly then the next repeat offense will be a block, unequivocal. What interests me is the examples when this wasn't the case, was it incorrect issue, i.e. editor education required, or procedural or no admins took notice? There should be no grey areas once someone repeats if enough warning has been given then a block will be following, though I do like your last version ShuminWeb, but it must be done throughout the range of templates. Cheers Khukri20:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it was always my full intention to implement any changes discussed across the whole range of last/only warning templates. I use the vandalism one as an example because I had to pick one to use as "typical". Most of them follow the same formula, however. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Also updated the Wikipedia:TestTemplates templates for the sake of uniformity. The fact that those older templates have not been redirected to the standardized UW templates is another story, but I'm not about to open that can of beans. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rationale behind the "final warning you will receive" to "final warning you are receiving" change? I have no problem with the rest of the changes, but that part strikes me as cumbersome and weird. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I just noticed the change, and to be honest "you are receiving" is not what a native speaker would say. "Will receive" sounds better. Let's change that part back. -- Flyguy649talk06:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition, I've changed the vand4 and vand4im templates back to "will receive". I'll go change the rest of them in a day or so. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block"
What if they believe the block was justified, but want to repent and request unblocking? I think we should tweak these a bit. –xenotalk15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:Uw-bioblock. This template is designed specifically for people who are blocked for excessive BLP violations. It's based on Template:Uw-vblock. I've created it because a canned block rationale exists for BLP violations, but there's not a quick and easy UW template for this same reason. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the templates leave a comment about their location (eg: [[template:uw-hugglexxx]]), but those locations turn out to be either nonexistent or redirects to the equivalent regular templates. So they're hidden somewhere. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"essay" implies some kind of personal opinion; show me the tiniest iota of personal opinion in it! It is designed to make the most basic point of textual copyright crystal clear. It is entirely appropriate to have it in the copyright warning template!! Rd232talk19:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate: the only relevant link in the template at present is the almost-designed-to-be-unhelpful-in-this-context Wikipedia:Copyrights. Put that next to WP:COPYPASTE and honestly say that COPYPASTE isn't vastly more helpful in explaining the reason the template will have been issued. Rd232talk19:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I thought that the two-sentence explanation of the problem provided by the warning template itself was sufficient explanation. I also tend to just type a short explain that copy/paste is a no-no rather than link to WP:COPYPASTE. I also think WP:Copyrights is fine but I understand legalese, so I'm not a representative sample. The link to the FAQ could be worthwhile though. I think I'll give a heads up to some editors who work copyrights alot and see if any of them feel like giving their two bits. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear hierarchy of explanation here. The {{uw-copyright}} message introduces the idea; for many contributors not familiar with copyright, especially younger ones, it's not clear enough. WP:COPYPASTE gives more detail, but remains short, clear and focussed specifically on text (which helps since much of the complexity is to do with images). Next up Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright covers most of the territory needed fairly clearly, but it's still well into WP:TLDR territory for the average "what's copyright?" newbie, because it covers all manner of issues which only apply in 1% of cases (if that). WP:COPYRIGHTS, the top level policy, is pretty much useless for 99.9% of newbies except for scaring them off contributing at all. (Frankly it's impenetrable even to me; but it does need to exist.) Rd232talk22:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{uw-copyright}} is the sole message; this one is not in hierarchy. At this point, I'd be comfortable linking to Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright (which does, after all, include "The short version" for those who don't want to read the whole thing), but I am not comfortable with linking to the essay (no matter how much I like it) from the warning template, unless consensus develops to promote it to something more official. Any contributor following that link could follow the header to Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays and learn that "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." This could lead them to conclude that copyright obedience is optional. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The short version" at the top of FAQ is already too complex and dealing too much with marginal cases. It might seem crystal clear to the copyright specialists, but it goes over the heads of a large part of the "it's on the internet so I can use it" target audience. A simpler version is needed as an intermediate step at least, and it exists: WP:COPYPASTE. Rd232talk19:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should start a page called Wikipedia:Copyright resources, which could link to WP:COPYPASTE and many other much more useful resources. I would object to linking to WP:COPYPASTE directly, as it is only an essay, and not a particularly accurate one at that! More an example of the "plagiarism" crowd wasting time yet again when we have much more serious copyright problems that need dealing with. Physchim62(talk)17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"not a particularly accurate one at that" - excuse me? And the page was intended and designed as an infopage, and later switched to "supplemental essay" status by someone not involved in its content without discussion and with the misleading edit summary "tidy header". I have now returned the page to "infopage" status. Can we add it now?? Rd232talk18:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holding off on the linking question for the moment (though I would like to know where you would want to add it, specifically), what do you see as inaccurate, Physchim62? Any accuracy issues should be addressed regardless. I don't know that there is over concern with plagiarism in here; Rd232 has done some good work with providing guidance for new contributors. (I increasingly see his Wikipedia:Article wizard put to good use.) This is understandably simplified, but it seems to focus primarily on copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to be added, I suggest removing "99.9%", as this seems to be an arbitrary percentage. The phrase "virtually all" should be sufficient. Intelligentsium02:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is arbitrary (though probably ballpark accurate at least), but I think it's helpful, because the vagueness of something like "virtually all" gives more "my case must be different" wiggle room. But I can live with "virtually all" or something similar. What about the other changes I suggested? Rd232talk08:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only arbitrary, it's ridiculous. How about another arbitrary percentage: 100% of the text on the web can be copy-pasted with impunity (as long as you do it one letter at a time and choose the letters randomly). Or, as a slightly more sensible example, there is nothing in copyright law which prevents me from copypasting a sentence such as "The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s." Nor is copypasting any different in copyright law from retyping a text: "In Poland's deepest autumn, a tall young man..." I'll stop there before I breach the short citation rule, but you can easily find which novel starts with those words! You might have a bit more difficulty with "The Gaussian system is a mixture of the esu system and the emu system...", but I would still be in breach of copyright if I continued that sentence for much longer. In short, the essay is centered around one single practice, and doesn't give any clear guidance as to how to avoid copyright problems: it assumes that we should for some reason be worried about "plagiarism" – as if Wikipedia was some sort of college course – and is actually silent on the very real copyright problems that WP faces. Physchim62(talk)16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to Moonriddengirl below. And by the by, your energy would have been better spent explaining what they "very real copyright problems" are, rather than a paragraph of sarcasm. Copypasting is the mechanism for 99.9%+ of textual copyright violations, and the proportion of people who would think copypasting may be different from retyping is probably about the same as the proportion who think they need to feed their computer mouse. I don't know why you're wasting our time with such nonsense; if you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything. If you do, out with it. Rd232talk16:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you have to resort to inventing statistics you expose the utter vacuity of your argument. And when you wish to spam new users with a link to such vacuous arguments, you make many, many well meaning editors look ridiculous. Copypasting in itself is not a problem for Wikipedia: I personally frequently use the "Ctrl-C" function to make sure that numerical data is correctly reproduced in Wikipedia articles. Plagiarism is not a problem, because we're not giving out course grades here. What is a problem is copyright violation. Personally, I think that any specious arguments that distract us from that simple fact are pernicious, and should be rebutted as forcefully as possible for the very sake of the project to which we are all committed. If you don't agree, tough: I won't do anything which is disruptive of Wikipedia, but I will repeat my opinion in those discussions where it is relevant, as here. Physchim62(talk)20:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I didn't think anyone would be silly enough to actually misunderstand the straightforward statement "you may not copy-paste text from other sources into Wikipedia (short quotations aside), because it would violate copyright". It seems pretty straightforward to me. I mean, hello, yes I use ctrl-C all the time to copy source titles and short quotes. I've seen no evidence that anyone is genuinely confused by this. It seems to me you're being argumentative for reasons which escape me. As for "inventing" the statistic, I've said elsewhere in this section that being vague would detract sharply from the force of the point being made; and it's not genuinely invented, it's not like I said "93.86%" -it's fairly obviously a rhetorical use, to give a general sense of how unlikely it is that User X copying text Y ought to go ahead and do that. Also, and allow me to bold this for those in the cheap seats: I don't care (here) about plagiarism. I didn't add the reference to plagiarism into COPYPASTE, and I don't know what the content of WP:Plagiarism is, and even at this point I can't be arsed to look, because that's how much I don't care. Rd232talk21:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
subdividing
Seeing it in action, you propose something like this?
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. In virtually all cases, you may not copy-paste text from other sources into Wikipedia (short quotations aside), because it would violate copyright. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
(I retained the "will be deleted", as I think "may be deleted" rather weakens the message). I am still not comfortable with "virtually all", as I think this may overstate the case. I would prefer "most", myself. I don't think the whole fragment should be linked, but perhaps it would be appropriate to link copy-paste itself. I am a bit concerned that the proposal may overprioritize text. The template without that sentence is currently balanced between text and images. I don't know, but making it parenthetical might minimize it a bit.
I've had a reread of the document, and I believe that Physchim62's objection about plagiarism may stem from the following:
"...and/or constitute plagiarism. If you think your case is the rare exception, read on - but remember that even in the cases where copyright is not a problem, it is probably still better to write the article yourself in your own words, and just cite the source you want to copy from."
If so, he's kind of right - we don't have consensus that it's better to write in our own words. Wikipedia:Plagiarism, in fact, says, "Material from public domain and free sources is welcome on Wikipedia...." As long as its properly attributed, it's not a problem. Since he may not be watching this conversation, I'll go nudge him to see. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the two Copyrights links in the draft above, to point to FAQ (for copyright definition) and Copyright subsection (skipping irrelevant bit at the top of Copyrights). I'm happy with the copypaste link as is, but it could be shortened to linking just "you may not copy-paste text" perhaps. On "virtually all" - I think statistically this is accurate. What proportion of content out there (a) uses a Wikipedia-compatible licence or is public domain and (b) is likely to be used as a source for copying substantial amounts of text (beyond the odd quote)? Pretty tiny I would think. On the plagiarism side, my understanding was that "use your own words" was consensus for the reason given in COPYPASTE: where text can be copied as is (copyright not being an obstacle), it's rarely a good idea because the style and focus of the text almost always requires adaptation - often substantial adaptation - to be good encyclopedic content. Rd232talk13:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable even with linking just "you may not copy-paste text". I believe that the colored text overprioritizes the document, where the actual policies are all linked to one word, except Wikipedia:Blocking. I think WP:C is much more important here than WP:COPYPASTE, as it is policy and (a) protected from vandalism and (b) carefully monitored for accuracy. "use your own words" in this template refers only to copyright problems, not to reuse of free text.
In answer to your question about the proportion, I can only point to Category:Attribution templates. Some of the biggies: US government sources, uses by the truckloads, old versions of Britannica and the DNB, ditto; copyright expired versions of the Catholic & Jewish encyclopedia; Citizendium and other proprerly licensed Wikis. There's loads.
Well, you do what you think is best, it's your territory. I do wonder (a) what proportion of copypasting attempts those examples you give represent and (b) what amount of rewriting the copied text typically had to undergo. In any case they're best-case scenarios. I'm not concerned here with plagiarism (I don't know what the content of Wikipedia:Plagiarism is), but rather with the encyclopedic suitability of the vast majority of copypasted text, independent of copyright issues. In general, low, hence justifying a general injunction to rewrite in your own words. It could be qualified slightly I suppose ("if copyright is OK, AND the source is really written in appropriate style and focus..."). My concern is that much of the copyright pages deal too much with a rather small proportion of cases, and in doing so fail to make the fundamental issue sufficiently clear to the less educated and/or less willing to read lots of text (WP:TLDR effect). Hence WP:COPYPASTE.Rd232talk14:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism is indeed a problem, albeit not as immediate a problem as copyright violation. There are no legal concerns if Wikipedia uses public domain text without attribution; the problem is that if such text is not attributed, WP:V has been violated and the project may be brought into (further) disrepute (i.e., "Wikipedia articles are just copies of the old Encyclopaedia Britannica"). If public domain text is used verbatim in an article with attribution, neither copyright violation nor plagiarism has been committed, as plagiarism by definition is the use of the writing and ideas of others without attribution. I also think it would be highly unlikely that someone who would be aware of the exceptions (public domain text and free-licence text) would receive this message, because they would probably either be (a) an experienced editor versed in copyright law or (b) a lawyer, who has at least some training in copyright law and thus would not post the offending content in the first place. More importantly, I think, is to emphasize what to do to release text one owns, that has also been published elsewhere, into a free licence (assuming it is within Wikipedia's scope). Intelligentsium21:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. While you may copy simple data, and you may use short quotations of copyrighted works if these are suitably acknowledged and are relevant to the article as a whole, your addition seems to go beyond these limits. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
I thought about adding a sentence as to the most common breach of these limits, that is where we take the structure of someone else's argument without due credit or relevance of the particular line of argument (I think the Plagiarism Police call this "close paraphrasing"): I can't think of a good wording and, in any case, the position of that red line seems to be a matter of debate. "You may copy simple data etc." is, I think, consensual. Physchim62(talk)23:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spam links warning
Please can I suggest that the line about "no-follow" is removed. The majority of people adding spam links are simply wanting to have their link displayed on Wikipedia to generate traffic, not thinking about search engine rankings. Having this line in therefore gives the impression that the person giving the warning doesn't really understand why they have added the link, but has still tried to "impress" the spammer with his own technical wisdom (as well as being slightly on the nerdy side). Halsteadk (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: I think many of our spammers are interested in search engine rank. The sooner we can disabuse them of spamming us, the better for us and for them. As for spammers and nerdiness -- many of them are worse than us. --A. B.(talk • contribs)18:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rude template messages
I recently encountered a dispute over Virgin birth (mythology) [since redirected]. I think a key point where it escalated involved some of Twinkle's messages at the user's talk page (User talk:Hammy64000) (I'm not familiar with Twinkle's range of messages, but these are credited to it in the edit summary; searching, it appears that the warning against blanking content is exceedingly rare, while the talk page threat occurs 578 times) These included:
Now you can look at the history of that article and make up your own mind - each was "sort of" justified according to the descriptions given (Hammy64000 deleted Template:disputed and some other notices, and argued some points at the talk page). But when these messages started pouring in, Hammy64000 pretty much went ballistic, and the net impact was to make the situation much worse.
Until I asked at Talk:Twinkle I didn't know where these warnings were coming from - I see now that level 3 warnings didn't have to be used - but I still have to question whether there should even be a level 3 for some of these. Things like "owning an article" or "inappropriate talk page discussion" are extremely subjective judgments that many editors disagree about; and they deserve a personalized explanation. Not unless (maybe) someone is completely swamping the talk page with 100-page essays not usable in the article can I see a "level 3 talk warning", using such severe language, threatening blocks, it's just ridiculous. Any situation deserving such a notice should deserve a personally written comment. It isn't right to be mechanically bombarding rather confused inexperienced editors like Hammy64000 with these hard-edged threats.
The message about deleting "...portions of page content, templates..." is just confusing - I assume it's meant to say don't blank the template itself, not that removing one tag is page blanking? And saying Calm down. in italics really defeats the purpose of saying it, doesn't it. Last but not least, saying that an editor is "owning" an article, therefore he may get into an edit war, therefore he may be blocked, is not merely pulling out the crystal ball but really doesn't sound like it's assuming good faith at all. (I see now that the level 3 explicitly does not assume good faith - which makes me wonder, why isn't their existence considered a violation of policy??) Wnt (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the "calm down" was manually added by the editor. Any extra comments typed in the "more" field in TW will appear in italics between the end of the template and the signature. (note that the "calm down" appears after the <!-- template --> identifier. Also, the messages are certainly not unique to TW, they're available for use as individual templates as well (the entire uw-* series of templates). --Darkwind (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I re-read your comments, I think you may be conflating the (possible) misuse of these template by a particular editor with the reason for their existence. There comes a point where you need to stop assuming good faith with an editor who has clearly proven their bad faith. An editor who has repeatedly inserted "Johnny sucks c*k in the bathrooms behind the gym" after repeatedly being warned will eventually need a stronger message than "oh please, don't do that". I haven't reviewed the edits that prompted these messages, so I have no opinion on whether these templates were used appropriately, but the Level 3 and 4 messages are there for a reason - there are people who eventually demonstrate through their actions that asking nicely won't work. These messages are not intended to be left for new editors who are obviously confused, they're intended for those who have demonstrated, typically several times, that they are editing in bad faith. --Darkwind (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying - it's just that I'm skeptical that "ownership" or "inappropriate talk page discussion" is ever that clear-cut in practice. Also, a problem that I see is that the only level of template that "assumes good faith" is marked with a "Welcome to Wikipedia!" message, as if the user is a complete newbie. But it's easy for users at any level of experience to run across at least the allegation some rule has been broken, so your structure should (at least) allow a way to assume good faith for all of them. Wnt (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
safesubst:
Can someone use a bot to replace all {{{subst|}}} instances with <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>? This gets rid of the unnecessary subst=subst: parameter that is confusing to most users. —MC10(T•C•GB•L)02:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed. I also propose adding <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly> into any {{#if or {{#switch that currently lacks substitution. Anomie⚔16:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain
This item says that "If you get a warning and then you get another one, it goes to the next level, even if it was for something different." How does this make any sense?
If a user's edits are well-intended but technically run afoul of some policy, you assume good faith. And if they make more well-intended contributions that run afoul of a different policy, you should assume good faith again. There's no earthly reason to think that the "second offense" is any less a matter of good faith than the first. And it is absolutely no excuse to violate WP:AGF and begin issuing super-harsh templates in response to minor violations, solely because you counted up some number of warnings.
I don't deny that there are some users who seem to act in bad faith, but some human mind should have to make that decision by its merits. Wnt (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of these messages should be left by a human, with the sole exception of specifically programmed vandalism bots (c.f. ClueBot). Tools like Twinkle and Huggle simply make them easier to leave; they don't make the decision for you. For example, Huggle has a revert-and-warn option that does indeed count the level of warning and just issue the next level down, but you don't have to use that option - it also has a perfectly good dialog box to select the appropriate warning level. If an editor is misusing these templates, it needs to be taken up with that editor, or through the dispute resolution process. --Darkwind (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was myself surprised once, when I used revert-and-warn on a user that didn't seem to have any previous user warnings, and Huggle went straight to an AIV report, which I manually removed. The problem, here, is that Huggle's display of the evaluated editor's latest warning level isn't always accurate. Maybe that's an issue that needs to be worked out with Gurch. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see here is that WP:AGF is an actual guideline, and breaking it without good reason (for instance, by editors who start making lots of unfounded accusations) has been known to get people banned just like any of the offenses warned against in these templates. Because the level 1 templates are the only templates that assume good faith, no program should be steering editors to issue templates that do not assume good faith (i.e. templates of level 2 or above), because programs can't tell on their own that someone is editing in bad faith. There are some slight exceptions to this (bots that identify edits as "appearing to be vandalism") but only for the very simplest of cases. Wnt (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the assumption of good faith really doesn't last past where the editor clearly displays a disregard for appropriate editing behavior. For example, if an editor blatantly vandalizes a page three times, they'll get uw-vandalism1, 2, and 3. If they then create an attack page, it's not any less a violation, and they'll get a uw-create4 warning, even though their previous violations weren't related to page creation. This is sensible, because they've disproved good faith through their actions. In other cases, where it's obviously a new editor who's just running afoul of a bunch of different, probably arcane policies, then of course you wouldn't keep increasing levels.
I see that the line you originally quoted from the policy page was unilaterally inserted by a single editor just this February, and it doesn't support the spirit of the rest of the page (such as the second paragraph, "to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faith vandals." I've removed the sentence.
Also, tools like Huggle that do count previous warnings are at least a fairly reliable guide to seeing when someone is maliciously editing. Again, if you think that these templates are being misused, please at least provide a couple of examples, or take it up with the individual editor if it's limited to just one person. I know, for myself, that these templates are needed because there are times where they are useful and required, and I know I'm using them properly. I don't want to have to type out by hand "you will be blocked" to the hundreds of schoolchild vandals who ignore the nicer warnings every day. --Darkwind (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep. Malicious redirects that might earn this template might include, for example, a vandal who's created the following redirects before being caught: "Retarded white trash monkey" --> George W. Bush or "Crackhead ethiopian nigger" --> Barack Obama. I would have no problem with leaving such a user a {{uw-redirect4im}}. --Darkwind (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Level 3 warnings tweaked to harmonize with Level 4 warnings
I've gone through and tweaked a number of the Level 3 warnings in order to better harmonize with the revised wording of the Level 4 templates. The main thrust of the revision is consistency in "will" vs. "may". The Level 3 warnings now say "may be blocked" rather than "will be blocked", which harmonizes with the newer Level 4 wording (which itself is partly in recognition that blocks are not automatic, especially if they become stale). SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming, advertising or...
Couple of thoughts here. Remember that these messages aren't for Wikipedia insiders, but rather for people who most likely know nothing of Wikipedia jargon. We use the term "spamming" in a very non-standard way; nobody is coming on to Wikipedia to post unsolicited commercial email. "Advertising" means something very specific as well; users correctly say "I wasn't advertising! I was just providing information!". So perhaps "spamming and advertising" might be changed to something like "advertising and self-promotion". At the very least, I suggest adding "promotion" in some form; we need a word that properly encompasses someone from XXX Corporation putting marketing-speak or PR-speak into articles regarding XXX Corporation. --jpgordon::==( o )14:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of the term spam has been extended to include all forms of unsollicited online marketing. Newsgroup and forum spam is quite old by Internet standards, as a term. So I don't see that we have an issue here. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how much time do you spend dealing with unblock requests? We use this rather nasty template for people who have inserted maybe three inappropriate links; it seems quite bitey, and unnecessarily so. --jpgordon::==( o )22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None. But if that's the problem, then these people need to be educated, perhaps directed to the Wikipedia article on spam (not the content guideline page), lest they'd be hit by the same problem at some other site. Point is, we're talking about an Internet-wide phenomenon here. While I agree that it may be bitey to use the term spam here, these people need to know that the term does not describe only e-mail. Perhaps spamlinking would be a more appropriate term to use, though. But if they've been blocked for it, that means they've ignored Level 1 and Level 2 warnings which used softer terms. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article you linked on spam defines it as follows:
"Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately."
This is not what the users are doing by adding what we call "spam links"; the usage of the term by the enwp community is entirely different from what's described by that definition, which is what most people (especially non-technically-oriented folks) would recognize. The mention of wiki-type spamming garners exactly three sentences out of a 51KB article, which tells me that our definition is not the most common. I support the idea of rewording uw-spam2, 3, 4, and 4im to avoid the word spam in the text in favor of something like "promotional" or "marketing links". --Darkwind (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be useful adding a link to {{uw-ublock}} saying something along the lines of:
Please note that if you change your name because of a conflict of interest with subjects which you have been editing, the Conflict of Interest guidelines still apply to the newly named account.
Assuming you mean {{Uw-softerblock}}, that sounds like a good idea, but I would probably say something more like "Please note that regardless of the account used, Conflict of Interest guidelines apply." People might presume that unless they were explicitly told their editing was COIish, it doesn't apply to them. I myself use a cobbled template at User:Moonriddengirl/Name which is (like everything I do) wordy. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. You said "uw-ublock." I read "uw-block." So, I'd support adding a note about it to both of these templates. :) Perhaps for uw-ublock, language such as "Please note that if you change your name because of its relationship to a group or organization, the Conflict of Interest guidelines still apply to the newly named account." --Moonriddengirl(talk)
In delete1, it says: "If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history." Now I am not native english, so I may be wrong, but to me it would be more logical to either say: "the text can easily be restored, because it is saved in the page history", or simply, "the text has been stored, as you can see..." Lova Falk (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Template index/User talk namespace, does not meet our username policy.
Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a few moments to create a new account with a username that represents only you. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may ask for a review of this username block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message. Thank you. ~~~~
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it appears your username ends in bot which may imply that this account belongs to a bot. Such usernames do not meet our username policy unless they belong to authorized bot accounts, so I have blocked this account. Please take a few moments to create a new account with a new username. If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message. Thank you. ~~~~
After a discussion at WP:UAA, I whipped up Template:Uw-causeblock for use when someone is trying to promote a "noble cause". If no one has any major changes or serious problems with it, I'll ask that it be added to the Twinkle arsenal in a few days. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not complying with the manual of style is not, in itself, a blockable offence, even if done repeatedly. These templates should not be saying that - if they should exist at all. A single level warning that does not threaten blocking would be more appropriate. A user that is going to war over style to be disruptive should be warned for disruption, not style violations. SpinningSpark09:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? As I said, breach of MOS (or any guideline) is not in itself blockable. We should not be threatening blocks unless admins will actually give out blocks for the behaviour. SpinningSpark21:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably get #3 and #4 deleted under WP:CSD#T2. IMO merge the rest into a single-level warning that will mainly be used to harass people. Anomie⚔23:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the more strongly worded ones are probably not needed, but repeatedly doing something, anything, that you have been told again and again is not welcome can indeed get you blocked. I have seen a user get blocked several times for persistently disregarding WP:NOTBROKEN. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a template for "the incorrect use of warning templates" is needed, some IP users like to use lvl 4 templates on other new and IP users, which occasionally causes them to be reported very minor infractions. (or even none at all). Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already one: {{uw-tempabuse}}. Level 1 below.
The documentation (transcluded from {{Singlenotice}}) does not reflect the actual behavior of the 2nd parameter. It does not replace the "Thank you", but adds a "beacause ..." Pcapping09:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template shortcuts
I notice that the template shortcut, Uw-v1, has one Rcat: {{R from warning template}}. Since it is a shortcut, then it should also have {{R from template shortcut}} on the same line with no space between Rcat templates. Since this is a protected template, I shall {{Editprotect}} in a short while if all agree that these shortcuts need the "R from template shortcut" added to their Redirect pages.
For {{Uw-v1}}just copy the following to the Redirect page:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Uw-vandalism1]]{{R from warning template}}{{R from template shortcut}}
So sorry; it's been a long day, and I haven't checked the other shortcuts to see if they also need the "R from template shortcut" template.
— Paine (Ellsworth'sClimax) 17:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Editprotect}}
There are four shortcuts (to {{Uw-vandalism1}}) that are protected and that need the shortcut Rcat, {{R from template shortcut}} added to their Redirect pages. There are a total of fifteen shortcuts, eleven of which are not protected. I've already added {{R from template shortcut}} to their Redirect pages as shown here. I don't know how many of these shortcuts are actually needed, but if they're kept, then the protected ones need the {{R from template shortcut}} template added to their Redirect pages. The easiest way to do this would be to go to the source page of each of the four protected Redirects, right-click on the source code and choose "Select all", then paste the following over the existing source code:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Uw-vandalism1]]{{R from warning template}}{{R from template shortcut}}
Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed the information header at the Wikipedia sandbox. Don't worry, the text has been restored, so you are free to continue testing your editing skills there, but please follow the instructions stated on the page. Good luck with your editing and thank you for your co-operation.
, 
, or even 
to draw attention to this template. It's way too personal and not enough, "hello, I really need for you to read this" -y. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 03:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
. Wouldn't an actual stop icon be better? Eg 
? Rd232 talk 08:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
this puts in a double hyphen thus: --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Template:Suicide response has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Khukri 19:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
I agree on that one. mechamind90 16:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.
BRFA filed. I also propose adding 
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Halsteadk (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)