Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 3

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.

← Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 →

Don't make stupid/useless redirects

We don't have a template for this --WikiSlasher 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you call a "useless" redirect? -- DiegoTehMexican 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like redirecting people from a page that is totally irrelevant to another page, I guess? MythSearcher 19:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - for example redirecting Likes to kill people for no reason to God (actually happened) or girehgpeirhg;pire to River. --WikiSlasher 06:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{testXarticle}}…? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I used when I came across the situation. I suppose that'll do fine. --WikiSlasher 09:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which temp should I use?

What do we use for good-faith when a user have added a link to a site that contains copyrighted materials like mp3, game, video, etc. downloads? I used the linkspam one for now (welcomespam) but I guess it sounds a bit strange. MythSearcher 19:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should use {{spam0}} (or the alias {{spam-agf}}). It was made for this purpose. 0-level templates are actually usually "assume good faith" templates. -- Renesis (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template use

A user has repeatedly "informed" me that templates are only to be used on "newbies" and that my using them on him/her is highly offensive (and she/he subsequently left an — by his/her own admission — retributive template on my talk page). Though I have backed my position and the user has not, I thought I would ask directly; I can think of many reasons that I feel this does not make sense, but rather than stating my own opinion, I want to know the Wikipedia policy. Shannernanner 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template warnings can be used on anyone where its appropriate. Hey, I mean even if an admin did something I would still use a template on them. --WikiSlasher 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates need updating - "Welcome, newcomers" was merged with "Introduction"

The Welcome page has been merged into the Introduction for a month now. If someone familiar with the templates (particularly an admin, as many are perma-protected) could update them all to remove/replace that link, that would be great :) Thanks. --Quiddity 21:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Welcome, newcomers sounds friendlier than Introduction. Just my 2¢. --WikiSlasher 07:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You don't greet people by saying "Introduction", do you? --Kyok o 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just like when I created {{longterm4im}}, I wanted to post here to ask everybody how my most recent template could be improved. I feel that {{test5article}} is fine right now, but I also feel that it could be improved just that much. Any suggestions? --I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales: anonymous IP numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members

The "Anonymous vandals" portion of the grid needs a series of warnings. There is an interesting comment by Jimbo Wales that applies to anonymous editors (IPs) that should be incorporated into warnings to anonymous editors:

Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits. I really don't care about your complaint as currently stated.--Jimbo Wales 13:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have adapted it for easy insertion in templates:

Users with "anonymous IP numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits." -- Jimbo Wales

How can we use this? -- Fyslee 16:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Jimbo's statement might make for a good policy or guideline, putting it into templates that will be placed on anon users' talk pages is a bit confrontational. In the particular case Jimbo was talking about, this was a (presumably) good-faith but anonymous editor getting caught in a block of an anon vandal. Rather than "biting" them by telling the newcomers they have no rights, perhaps a variant on Template:anon to tell a "good" anon user there is no way to tell them apart from vandals unless they make an account. --Dgies 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not intended against anyone in particular, but every remark Jimmy makes doesn't need to be quoted somewhere. I'm sure he knows this too. --WikiSlasher 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, if you're worried about this perpetuating the whole "James owns us" mentality, don't. Everyone should know GIPUs have less rights. The diference in access privilages alone makes that clear. Jim's just stating a fact. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Template:wr?

I see that Template:Wr has been deleted, but I can't find a TfD discussion regarding it. Does anyone know what happened or where the discussion is? --GentlemanGhost 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedily deleted by Thebainer under CSD T1. It was than put under a deletion review, but the result of the discussion was that it would remain deleted, so it's now gone. I c e d K o l a ^{(Contributions)} 18:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour me confused, but why were they deleted just three weeks after a Templates for Deletion concensus to keep them? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies and the link. I had failed to find that discussion using my (inadequate) search techniques. I am as confused as Kralizec, though. If the result of the discussion was "keep", why haven't they been restored? Was there another discussion that superceded this one? --GentlemanGhost 22:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the deletion review for it! --WikiSlasher 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete warnings template

Are there templates to warn that a user should not remove warnings from their talk page? I always end up entering that manually. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were the Template:WR warnings ... see the above discussion. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disparaging pages template

Is there a template to warn users about creating disparaging articles? I keep looking for one, and I notice a lot of people putting up speedy deletion tags not warning users. RichMac 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep there's:

{{attack}} (sounds like level 3) (optional to include name, uses parser function)
{{attack-warn}} (sounds like level 3) (must include article name)
{{warn-attack}} (sounds like level 2) (must include article name)
{{attackpg-warn}} (sounds like level 1)

{{attackpg-warn-n}} (Article-specific version)

They're not in the table though for some reason, I might add them in sometime. --WikiSlasher 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found attack shortly after posting just by punching stuff in. Would definantly be nice to have them in the table though. RichMac 09:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{db-attack}} template does place

Please consider placing {{subst:attack|Article Title}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author.

in the "this has been tagged for speedy" box on the tagged article, which can be cut and pasted. Perhaps these should be renamed to fit the "standard" warning levels though? Tonywalton | Talk 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does the im in test4im stand for? Is it "immediate"? --WikiSlasher 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threat templates

These seem very focused on legal threats, and only tangentially related to physical threats. I just used Template:threat2 to warn an anon who said "I know where you live poser", and it didn't quite seem like the right warning. Are there other warning templates that would be more appropriate? Or should we consider modifying threats2 and threats4 to be more inclusive of non-legal threats? --Dgies 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's close enough. Since it's subst'ed anyway, it is always an option to just edit the text for your specific case. — Sebastian

speedy deletion user page warning templates?

There are templates here to put on the user page when his article is AfD'd or PROD'd, but not if its nominated for speedy deletion. I'm sure such templates must exist but they seem very well hidden. Anyone know where they are? Thx Herostratus 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually go straight to a {{test}} or {{nn-test}} or the like. It's probably not correct, but I do prefer to notify users by some means. RichMac (Talk) 03:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just arrived looking for the same thing. Time to create one? (It must already be done...) ∴ here…♠ 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newpages patroller so off the top o' me head: {{nn-warn}}, {{nn-notice}}, {{Nn-test}}, {{vanity}}, {{vanity2}} {{empty-warn}}, {{spam-warn}}, {{test1article}}, {{test2article}} (through 4), {{Nonsensepages}}, {{nothanks}} (for db-copyvio), {{Attackpg-warn}}, {{Attack-warn}} {{Recreated}}—that's most of 'em.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added references to a few in the deletion related section. Turns out most of the speedy templates like {{db-bio}} include a line suggesting the use of an appropriate template.. shame on us for not reading far enough ;). Thanks for the help. ∴ here…♠ 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Not enough users warn after tagging so making the appropriate templates more accessible can only help.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template for false & misleading edit summaries

I created a misleading edit summary template as a user message warning. I looked around & didn't see one and didn't see discussion of one in the pages, so I just did it. Inspired by encountering someone who has repeatedly posted the same external link to the Female ejaculation article, and most recently did so with the very false title "Removed spam". I haven't done a template before, so apologies if I've broken wikipedia protocol, or, worse, screwed up the formatting. In fact, I somehow can't figure out how to make it space correctly when linking to the user page parameter.--LQ 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. It now appears like the following. Please let me know if this isn't what you meant. — Sebastian 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise changes to the content of the article, to comment on the article or editors, or to disguise inappropriate content such as spam or personal attacks. If you continue to post such misleading edit summaries, you may be blocked for disruption.
Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise changes to the content of the article, to comment on the article or editors, or to disguise inappropriate content such as spam or personal attacks, as you did in some article. If you continue to post such misleading edit summaries, you may be blocked for disruption.

Beautiful! Thanks -- you're genius. (And now I see what was happening & what I was doing wrong.) --LQ 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it also, save for one thing. Needs a shorter name. Template:Misleading or Template:Misleadedit or something like that. I could see this being placed in the Template:TestTemplates grid as well, probably in the "Caution" column. --*Spark* 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "wrongsummary2"? The "2" expresses that it "Could be seen as vandalism". — Sebastian 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC), changed 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, since it WP:AGF. Perhaps one stating "wrong summary" at the caution level and another higher up stating "misleading" would be more effective. --*Spark* 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, on rereading the list on the project page I realized that level 3 would be wrong, so I'm correcting my above statement. Please feel free to change your reply, as well.

I think we should AGF as long as possible, so the fact that a template does it is only a sign for the diplomacy of its author, not that it belongs in level 0 ("Good faith edit"). — Sebastian 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A useful template but I have a quibble with the language. Misleads means the act of misleading, a verb. In the context used it apparently is intended as a plural of mislead, but not as misleads is normally defined. As such it sounds jarringly incorrect. Second, why not have a parser function like many similarly situated templates? Finally, you're not adding the template because your guessing that the person engaged in these acts but warning them against doing so again, so why the waffling "if the <misleads> are intended..." How about:

Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise spam, personal attacks, or other inappropriate changes to the content of an article{{#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. If you continue to post such misleading edit summares, you may be blocked for disruption.

--Fuhghettaboutit 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine for wrongsummary3. I don't believe using the term "misleading" is WP:AGF for a lower level warning (wrongsummary2). The user might not understand the purpose of edit summary, might not think their summary was misleading, so to outright accuse them of misleading is not a good idea. For wrongsummary2 I propose:

Please use an accurate [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] for your contributions. A summary which is intentionally misleading in an attempt to disguise spam, personal attacks, or other inappropriate changes to the content of an article could be seen as vandalism or disruption, and you may be blocked.

Well....needs work, but I think that's more appropriate for a lower level. --*Spark* 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I like Fuhghettaboutit's wrongsummary3, and your wrongsummary2 for the case without a parameter. How would you word it if it contained a link to the affected page?

But now I see another problem: Should we really keep the square brackets? What if someone wants to add the link to a diff instead? What if there were several wrong summaries? That would be more likely the lower the level, so we probably really need this for wrongsummary0 or wrongsummary1. After the nice compliment I got above I guess I should be able to answer this myself, but I gotta go now and wanted to raise the question. — Sebastian 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I just came across a case for {{wrongsummary1}}, and I'm creating that template now. — Sebastian 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good template -- I changed "adequately" to "accurately" because I thought it would be more general; inadequacy seems to me like a specific instance of inaccuracy. But YMMV; I thought of it more as a provisional change to get opinions. --LQ 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a few general thoughts in response to cmts above (signed individually to facilitate threading).

Multiple wrongful summaries could indicate either intentional behavior or cluelessness, but in general, it would be good if all the templates had some way to "multiplize" them. I've found, recently, that if I revert a vandalism on one page, and look at the user, the user (often an IP address) will have done a bunch of vandalisms, and I can fix a bunch all at once. One good template that handled all would be helpful, but I think it's not just an issue for "wrong summary". --LQ 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The scale of "wrong" to "misleading" seems right, and helpful; but on the low end I would be very forgiving and gentle in the language, because "accurate" can be really a matter of judgment. My initial proposal was really targeting something that was fairly obviously intended to be misleading, a willful attempt to obscure something inappropriate. I could see having a low-level AGF version of the "willful mislead" that was different from the low-level version of "wrong summary"; that may be too much proliferation, though. --LQ 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the level 1 messages in the editing category on Template:TestTemplates, and I'm quite appalled how harsh some of these are. That may be a topic for a separate discussion, but at least I found nothing there thas would be more forgiving and gentle than what I have in {{wrongsummary1}}. Please feel free to change it, though, if you have a good idea. — Sebastian 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving "Misleading edit summary" to {{wrongsummary3}}, since this seems to be the general agreement. We can always refine it and add {{wrongsummary3}} later. I also added #1 and #3 to Template:TestTemplates. — Sebastian 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comparison with other edit summary templates

I was blind! Just after I added the two, I realized that there already exists a whole row in Template:TestTemplates just for Edit summaries. I'll wait what you guys have to say, but we should clean up the mess. Should we delete the new templates, or are they better than some of the old? — Sebastian 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) }} Reworded 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually blind -- but those notices seemed aimed at "no edit summaries" (and one for "abusive"). I encountered a situation where a person who was engaged in a minor revert war had attempted to disguise with a (deliberately) misleading edit. That was what I was getting at. I agree, that any such templates should be included in the edit summaries row, and not create a whole new row. Or, edit the original templates ... But there are at least three different issues that need to be addressed, whether in a single message at each level of severity, or in separate messages at appropriate levels of severity: (a) no edit summaries; (b) edit summaries that are inaccurate or sloppy or inappropriate in some way; and (c) edit summaries (that appear to be) intended to mislead. --LQ 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to box your comment? We know about this row, I mentioned the grid already. These new templates cover a particular issue better than what's already there. --*Spark* 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it was only necessary for me. I guess I should go see (sic!) an ophthalmologist. :-] Please feel free to remove this line, and to reword your replies, since I changed "we" to "I". — Sebastian 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed {{wrongsummary3}} per above discussion (and in an incredible bit of irony, on a second change to the language of the template, messed up the edit summary with a cut and paste artifact). Since no one had yet created it, I also made {{wrongsummary2}}. Does it strike the correct balance between 1 and 3?--Fuhghettaboutit 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it strikes the right balance in tone, but ... (see next section) --lquilter 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misleading is not just about spam/verboten content

Somehow, we ended up focusing on summaries that mislead about content that is forbidden. But some of the incidents that inspired me on this template initially were not forbidden content, per se, but attempts to disguise edits. The edits were POV edits in that case, although that was the subject of a protracted debate. But looking at the templates (very good work all of you) they refer only to per se bad content, and the focus ends up being on the bad content--not the edit summary. I'd like to go back in and wordsmith, adding a phrase that covers the other type of misleading edits too, and wordsmith the sentence.

For instance, on Template:Wrongsummary2, change "A recent edit of yours appears to contain spam, a personal attack, or other inappropriate commentary. Please write edit summaries that accurately reflect the changes you made to the article." to "One of your recent edit summaries did not accurately describe your edit. Changes to the content of articles should be accurately described in the edit summary."

On Template:Wrongsummary3, change "Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise inappropriate content such as spam, personal attacks, or inappropriate commentary about the content or editors of the article. If you continue to post such misleading edit summaries, you may be blocked for disruption." to "Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise changes to the content of the article, to comment on the article or editors, or to disguise inappropriate content such as spam or personal attacks. If you continue to post such misleading edit summaries, you may be blocked for disruption."

Thoughts? --lquilter 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we've already got templates for spam and the others, these templates should be warning for incorrect edit summaries. --WikiSlasher 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm making these changes now (and also fixing the help info to include links to the right template names). --lquilter 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British and American spellings; and others

Is there a template warning or informing users about changing spellings? John Reaves 02:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it starts with Template:Uw-engvar and works up from there. There's also Template:Spellcheck for general spelling issues. See Template:TestTemplates for the complete list. --*Spark* 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD deletion templates

Just to give people a heads up:

The current CSD nomination templates (are generally though not exclusively) for telling users that the article they have just created is up for deletion. Not only am I going to tidy up and condense some of the templates e.g. as done with Template:Empty-warn, I will be adding another set of similar templates for use by Admins upon CSD deletion. This is because, obviously, some of the info in the former is not relevant in the latter (e.g. Hangon requestl) and vice versa.

I hope that makes sense - and that Admins will find them useful. Any questions leave them here or on my talk page, cheers Lethaniol 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with CSD templates

Hi there,

There has been an issue whether CSD warn templates for user talk pages should have a heading or not e.g. Template:nn-warn - have opened a discussion up here Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD templates - I suppose please comment there so consensus can be reached in one place. Cheers Lethaniol 14:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for people spamming deletion tags ?

Hi, I'd like to know if there is any templates for users spamming Speedy deltion tags, because I didn't find any Thanks Dread Specter 04:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

color

nice! Tvoz 08:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming changes

Please note, this page will be undergoing overhaul in the next month or so, due to work being carried out at the WikiProject for user warnings. An idea of the new structure maybe found here, any problems please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I saw this page, and I'm impressed with the work and improvement: tip o' the hat to all who were involved! Akradecki 20:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is removewarn fair?

Don't get me wrong, I use {{removewarn}} myself; I'm as annoyed as anyone else by vandals. But it just occurred to me that none of the vandalism templates say anything about not removing them. How is a newbie supposed to know this? Moreover, people are free to delete personally written statements from their talk page. By common sense, many people will treat a template, which is basically akin to a form letter, with less, rather than more respect. One of my principles is to not expose people to unnecessary unpleasant surprises. So, my question is: Should we include a warning "don't remove this" in every template? — Sebastian 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that the person is removing it to show themselves in a better light, not to clean up their talk page. Perhaps removewarn should also tell them that if the warning annoy them so much they can just get a new account. Jon513 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - but who are we to scold them for that? Most people want to show themselves in a better light, and I've seen even admins delete questions on their talk page for no apparent reason other than that they didn't like them. Good idea about the new account, though. — Sebastian 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a new account to dodge a final warning, that new account can be blocked, along with your original account. A bit more on-topic, I do agree that certain (not all) warning templates should state not to remove warnings, such as the level 4 warnings and the block templates, just as long as it doesn't try to enforce that policy, as no policy on that exists. You may want to look here. --Iced Kola 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user should not create another account to put themself in "a better light". The vandalous edits are still in their history and the warnings can serve as an aid to analysizing/blocking Admins. The only valid reason to remove warning templates is sensible archival. Simply deleting them won't do. No exceptions, no way out. In fact, I just created Template:TYWLAM. I think it gets the message across. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss that on Template talk:TYWLAM — Sebastian 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Iced Kola, for the link. It shouldn't have been so small: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings.

Should we adjourn the discussion here until a solution is found there, or should we, at least temporarily, change removewarn to include something like : "You may not be aware of it, but ..."? — Sebastian 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay to leave it as is. They may not have known; but that's what this message does -- it tells them why the messages are there. I don't think the message currently assumes bad faith, either; it offers suggestions for legitimate reasons the person might have been blanking and gives them links to help with that. --lquilter 15:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add {{TYWLAM}} to the WP:WARN page then? I don't see it there. And where do we report people who keep removing warnings after a {{TYWLAM}}? WP:AIV, if it's considered to be vandalism, or WP:ANI? Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 11:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civilx, AFGx, & NPAx

I understand that placing these messages on a user talk page can be taken as a hostile action, even vandalism by some, and often only escalate situations. They are especially problematic when placed by people who are the targets of this behaviour. Perhaps their should be some cautioning documentation as such? At the same time, I think people who feel that they are targets can have some templates to help them notify offending editors. Maybe a afg0 and an npa0? --Ronz 21:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC) afg0, npa0[reply]

Reminder about upcoming changes

Hi,

This is just a reminder that the multi-level warnings on this project page will be changing on the 22nd January. The new templates are currently up for review here. Please examine the new templates, read the project / talk pages and we'd be very interested in your suggestions and opinions. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion template

I've created a new template to deal with users deleting other people's comments. It does not appear that there is currently a template to deal with this vandalism, so I created one. It can be found here:

This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry.

Please do not remove other people's comments unless the issue has been resolved or their comment is no longer relevant to the current state of the article. With the exception of these scenarios, the removal of other people's comments is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. . Refinement on the template would be much appreciated. -- Eptin 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completed discussions?? The standard on most talk pages I've seen is to keep them, or sometimes archive them. Even for one's own comments, it still seems unusual. DMacks 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism = tpv?

anyone know why the userpage vandalism tags are tpv rather than, say, upv? This has come up on the user warnings unification project thingie too. I'm just curious. Rawling 13:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it stands for talk page vandalism — check tpv2. The levels of this warning seem to differ on whether they're for talk page abuse or user page vandalism. Feezo (Talk) 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image vandalism

Which tag should I use for someone who has blanked the description section of an image? Where the copyright tags and so on should go? SGGH 12:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blank templates {{blank}}, {{blank2}} etc. should be fine for that. --WikiSlasher 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]