Template talk:Test4

Non-sysops?
Can/should this template be used by non-sysops? The threat is rather hollow, coming from someone who doesn't have the power to carry out the actions threatened. Still, I used the template once or twice before I became a sysop, when I felt it warranted... &mdash; David Remahl 03:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. It's just a threat. If they do keep vandalizing, you can usually get a hold of an admin at Vandalism in progress or in the chat room. - Vague Rant 09:56, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Using these templates to track vandals
It would be very useful if the addition of, etc. were automatically to put the User in a category of "Vandals to be tracked", so as to generate a list of these people. What happens often enough is that the warnings are ineffectual.

I tried doing this, on the model of, but it doesn't seem to work, maybe because these are User Talk pages that  is applied to. Is this worth pursuing?

I'm posting this here as well to get maximum visibility, but please centralize responses to the Test Template Talk page.Bill 13:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop hand
Jtdirl added the "stop hand" image to this template. My initial reaction is to remove it since it hasn't been discussed here. I use the test templates often and personally, I don't want to put big red stop hands on people's talk pages. Others may want the hand, of course. Maybe we should explore other ways to make test4 an "attention-getter", since it's a very important warning. I don't think this is the proper solution. We should at least discuss it beforehand. Rhobite 00:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your reversion was wrong. The hand is a must IMHO. The whole point of that message is that it is the ultimate and most serious warning. I have spoken to users who were banned and who said later they did not see the message among other messages and did not understand that it is was a serious 'this is your final warning' message. After discussing it with them (two emailed me afterwards asking why I had blocked them without warning. I explained that I had warned them.) I added in the hand to make it abundantly clear that this is not just another 'stop it' warning. This is a 'you are one step away from being banned' warning. It has to have visual impact or it is worthless.


 * As it stands, given what I have been told it is worthless because it is all too invisible to someone who doesn't spot it among their messages. The hand, the classic stop sign, makes sure they see it and get the message - if you repeat what you are doing you will be banned. This is your final warning. With the hand they cannot but see the message and so it may actually stop vandalism and remove the need for a block. (The current tests really aren't adequate and need a graphic impact to draw attention to them.) FearÉIREANN[[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\(caint) 01:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I just wish you had discussed this change before implementing it. You didn't even use an edit summary to explain why you were making the change. This template is widely used and it's a little presumptuous to modify it without any discussion. I (and some other users) don't like using images as decoration on talk pages. They're superfluous. As I said I use this template a lot, but I will not use a version with an image in it. What if we put the text inside a highlighted box instead, similar to Template:idw-pui? There are better solutions than a giant stop hand. Rhobite 01:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually there aren't. Fancy boxes communicate nothing. A stop hand is a clear graphic representation of the message. It also covers cases where the user may have poor english and not grasp the full import of the message. No matter what culture on his from, a stop hand has only one meaning &mdash; stop now. And frankly I find the suggestion that images are used as decoration and are superfluous quite frankly ludicrous. This is a standard visual image of the message and leaves the receiver in no doubt as to its importance. But since (in my view mindbogglingly) you seem to have a problem with a visual representation of a message &mdash; remind me again? We are using computers with graphic abilities, not typewriters? &mdash; I suggest simply having two test pages; template:test4i (the one with the image) and template:test4ni (the one with no image) so those with a phobia about images can use the plain text version. But I guarantee that the one with no image will prove next to worthless and will lead to people being blocked, whereas the one with the image will stop vandalism before people are blocked in a lot of cases. FearÉIREANN[[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\(caint) 01:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I find images on talk pages - including in signatures - to be obnoxious. No offense. It's true that these fancy computers can display graphics. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. I don't want Wikipedia to turn into one of those forums with huge signatures and a million spinny little things everywhere. As for your claim that the stop hand would reduce vandalism: I've blocked a lot of people but I've never gotten an e-mail from someone claiming they overlooked the message. I think the stop hand is a solution seeking a problem. Anyway I've created a possible alternate template, available here. I subst'd them below. If we do decide to keep the one with the hand, we should at least fix the problems with text wrapping and reduce the size of the hand. Rhobite 01:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, but by the way.. just because these fancy computers can display text does not mean they should -- a picture or audio warning would often the more natural method of communicating (granted, background audio on a talk page would be too surprising for the web), when pictures help gather attention and identify the message and its severity more clearly, like here, they should be used in favor to a few lines of dull text. A highlighted box is one thing, but as a substed template it would add code-clutter to the talk pages and make it hard to add more to the message [specific to the situation] if needed (since there's no option to subst and then customize text before saving an edit), (or at least that which was added would not wind up being in the box) Images in signatures, spinny things, etc, would be undesirable, but that point is also irrelevent to the matter of an image on test4: this is an important standard message and not a personal signature, and so far, noone has seriously suggested an animated image. --Mysidia (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparison of templates
Test4 with hand:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing.

Template:Test4/Alternate with highlighted box instead of graphics (feel free to tweak, it's just an example):

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing.

Rhobite 01:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is a lot better than what was there. The principal reason I think the hand is important is because it communicates the message to those who either don't read message &mdash; something like that is more likely to make them stop, notice it and see what it is about, whereas text, even in a good box like the one you have created, is not something everyone will read &mdash; and also because some people come to Wikipedia with poor English and don't get messages. (One recently kept adding in weird English stuff all over the places. Messages were left telling him to stop, but I could not help wondering if he was really able to understand them. A hand image has a universal meaning &mdash; stop.

re the messages, I was surprised to get not merely one but two. One guy said that while he was getting warning messages he didn't think Wikipedia actually did block people. "I was just messing" was the way he described his edits. He said that if he had known he was going to be blocked he would have "of course" stopped. (He emailed me to ask me to unblock him, which I did.) Another guy 4 days later emailed me in a furious mood asking how dare I block him without warning him. When I said I had done he insisted I hadn't. I ended up cutting and pasting comments from his page onto the email to show him that I had left a message. His response was "how was I supposed to see that?"

That got me thinking about how weak the actual message was in terms of communicating that this was an urgent message that cannot afford to be missed. Then the guy with the bad English came on and again I found myself wondering whether he would understand a text message. A combination of them all made me think that the solution was to attach a universally recognised symbol to the message, and the universally recognised symbol for stop is a hand. And it so happened that Wikipedia had such an image which it uses on many pages already to send the message stop and read this when it comes to disputes, etc. I do think that the hand is a very powerful symbol that makes this message stand out from all the others. The others range from the 'please stop' to 'stop'. Test 4 is the 'stop it or else' message and needs a visual impact that makes it stand out and the final warning. (Plus also the image is in red, the standard stop colour, from traffic lights to red cards in sports. So again, image-wise, it promotes the message of 'stop now or else'.) Sorry if I annoyed you by doing it, BTW. I was simply trying to find a way to maximise the impact of this message for Wikipedia's benefit. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I must say that I did not, initially, like the hand. However having read Jtdir's comments, I can see that it's probably a good idea, so I'd support it being in the template (but don't make it too big). Dan100 (Talk) 16:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I like the hand, too. Deb 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the hand too. Possibly add this to the other test templates and possibly have it start out faded and have it get darker each time.  Also, important words should be bold-ed, I think. --michael180 22:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, I removed the hand without noticing this discussion first. Anyway, I think that images on talk pages are excessively distracting.  Also, since this template is subst:'ed on talk pages, it makes cleanup even harder if we decide that we want to cut down on server load by removing the image later on.  JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Header
I added the header Test warn 4 to make the test distinguishable from other text on the discussion page, as well as a count for easy reference of the last test used. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ? 04:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Header caused problem with editing. I'm trying a hard line and bold text for seperation. Example:

Final warning

&infin; Who ? &iquest; ? 06:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Often, I don't go straight through test, test2, 3, 4, and then 5. If the vandalism has been particularly egregious, I might start with test2, or jump from test2 to test4.  Do you think that would cause a problem if the warnings are numbered?  Joyous  (talk) 17:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good question. I think if serious vandalism is happening that it may warrant using the next test. Since I'm not an admin, I try to follow the "rule" on warning the user through all 4, although I think 4 times takes awhile.  I don't think it needs the numbers as much as the header, but they give a clear answer to where the user was last warned.  I guess they could be labeled with a related word, rather than a number.  Other than that, I'm sure everyone would understand if someone did skip 2 or 3.  Lemme play around with the wording and see if I can replace the numbers.   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  18:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Changed the numbering to "type of warning".
 * Test2 - Polite warning or Please stop
 * Test2a - Polite warning
 * Test3 - Discontinue warning or Please Discontinue
 * Test4 - Final warning

I think these maybe better than numbering, and can be easily skipped depending on the severity of the warning. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ? 19:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see updated proposal on Test 2 talk. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  08:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Alteration
Please see Alteration.

Possible wording change
(cross-posted to Template talk:test4-n, you should probably reply there as it's more popular) For non-admins using this template, there is often a problem in that it loses all credibility very quickly. A test4 is placed on a user's page. They vandalize again, and are reported to AIV. If there's a backlog or no admins around, it may be quite a while before they are blocked, in which time other users can do nothing but repeat test4, each one saying they will be blocked next time, and the vandal by now not believing it at all. So, perhaps a better wording would be "If you vandalize again, you may be blocked without further warning". This still conveys the message that 1 more attack can mean a block, but it doesn't instantly lose credibility if they aren't blocked after their next attack, due to the above reasons. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning: change warning templates
No editor would vandalize. Template user needs to be more honest with self. Just disagrees with the other editor. Foundation could be sued with templates calling people vandals. Here is a better idea for this template:

I still disagree with you edit, so you may as well discuss the edit on the article's talk page:

--Chuck Marean 04:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Chuck, lots of vandalism occurs on Wikipedia. These templates aren't for disputes over content, but actual vandalism as defined in WP:VAND. See, for example, . These warnings are necessary to help police and manage this reality of allowing anyone to make edits to pages. --mtz206 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

lb equiv
lb:Template:Test4

--Briséis 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

zh equiv
zh:Template:Test4--Jusjih 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --CBD 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit to template
Could an admin add TestTemplatesNotice to the template (obviously in a &lt;noinclude&gt; section)? Test0-Test2 have them, and it'd be nice to have this sort of standardized. EVula 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks. EVula 18:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved documentation
Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Test4/doc subpage, as recommended in Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to: This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Thanks. +mwtoews 03:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Luna Santin 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Uw-vandalism4
This template is redundant and should be redirected to the recently created Template:Uw-vandalism4. Squirepants101 01:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it should be uw-test4 I think. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I'm a dumbass. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Proto ::  ►  16:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

can we not redirect this, why do you want this redirected? dvd rw  16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject user warnings. Please discuss before blindly reverting.  Proto ::  ►  18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, i read it, i just don't see the point. it's like renaming every wikiproject to wikipediaproject. i still don't see why, dvd  rw  20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject user warnings does not wish for the templates to be redirected — see Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Please revert the redirection.  Λυδ α cιτγ  20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. -- JLaTondre 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Last Warning?
Why is it that after having gone through all four steps, and we place You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at SOME PAGE. on the user's talk page, and when they vandalize again, we do nothing? They saw the warning, and they did it again. They should be blocked. This is not the current policy on Wikipedia, so something (either the text of this message or the policy) needs to be changed (crossposted to WP:AIV) McKay 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Retarget
editprotected

Please retarget back to Template:Test4, which is no longer a double redirect. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget what? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, wrong talk page! Sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"last warning" vs "may be blocked"
I don't think these make a very good match. Palosirkka (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)