User:Gatewaycat/sandbox


 * Straus Park, Duke Ellington Blvd 106th St
 * Ansonia, Verdi Park, 72nd St
 * Lincoln Center, San Juan Hill, 66th St
 * Columbus Circle, 59th St
 * Times Square, 42nd St
 * Herald Square, 34th St
 * Flatiron District, Madison Square Park, 23rd St
 * Union Square, 14th St

UWT:

bad-faith 1st edit,, (very soft) good-faith; no edit summary -- (not good-faith enough, more concentration of edit summary omission/unclear summary) first edit text deletion, no edit summary

-- no trivia sections i remember being very confused by the name UTM, prefer UWT

(Do not remove verified content from pages without reason) (your account is only being used for vandalism, so it has been blocked indefinitely) (Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're absolutely sure)

assumes good-faith the wrong way, that the misinformation was a test, instead of an accident, maybe is better

--why two uses? (cleanup, apology); i dont like having a template, too impersonal, seeing as the apology was probably by hand (or do we have an apology template?)

de-categorise, don't mass MfD UTM's in the user namespace

i like

cute

keep the welcome pages, becuase people have favorites, support bc having too-many/duplicate/non-uniformly-named UWT is confusing

Template:user has a bunch of good templates

2007 Natural Calendar

2007 Natural Calendar (Booklet)

Ideas:


 * Recessions of the 1990s article series
 * UWT for bad-faith first edits; ?, had to use welcome anon-vandal (too soft)
 * UWT for good-faith edits with no edit summary
 * UWT for first edit, text deletion with no edit summary (ie, libel, incorrect)

replace "--" and " - " with "—"

WPSW: List of Manhattan neighborhoods, HCHS (yet to do)

Some useful Wikipedia project pages:


 * WP:UWT—User warning templates
 * —for adding spam external links (contrary to WP:SPAM, WP:LINKS, WP:COI; please note, all three articles consider the other two main articles, I suggest making WP:SPAM the main one and WP:COI a see also)
 * —for libel (contrary to WP:LIVING)

Some userful Wikipedia project policy pages:


 * WP:TRIV—no trivia sections (we need a including welcome for new users plus higher UWTs)
 * WP:CONTEXT—don't go crazy with the wikilinks

My Immediatist tenancies: if an article is four pages long, extremely well written, nuanced, encyclopedic, neutral, and has 60 footnotes, it should be given the benefit of the doubt for Notability (and to a lesser extent, WP:OR) because as an article, it makes Wikipedia look good in the eyes of the public! Notability was originally invented to keep out Physics cranks. Usually non-notable articles are crap, and notability is used as the (good) excuse to delete it.

Maybe each UWT could be corresponded with a WP policy page

I agree with that admin (who i can't remember) that hates cleanup templates in some ways. For example, should never be used—integrate the trivia yourself, or if the section is too big, delete the trivial (haha) content and then integrate, or if you're really short of time, add a invisible note, perhaps in huge uppercase letters, but DONT just add  because it may just sit there for months