Template talk:Warning
Hmm. Useful, classy, and simple. Nice job. FyreNWater - (Talk • Contributions ) 06:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally. I was wondering why we didn't have this already. It looks good. (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 06:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC))
- What about adding text regarding subjects other than vandalism? Such as personal attacks, etc. (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 00:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC))
Deletion[edit]
Any reasons that SW:QDV doesn't cover, SW:AGF will.Smoreking(T) (c) 00:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that seems to be users or IPs who snapped or new users or IPs who need to be given some advice. However, recently, it seems that this template doesn't seem to be necessary to use anymore, what with SW:QDV being (in a way/kind of) new. MarioGalaxyDeath has a price. I've paid it... 00:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is a single, to the point warning not in keeping with QDV? QDV is meant to prevent people from trolling vandals, not to prevent someone from warning an IP that their edit(s) may have been construed as vandalism. – Defiant Elements +talk 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but a few users here (after I didn't QDV; afterwards, when I gave IPs warnings, they said I shouldn't do so anymore) have been saying that I shouldn't waste my time warning a vandal. Wait, now I'm definitely confused. You see, users have said now to warn an IP, as they don't want it showing up in the recent changes. Now I feel like an idiot. Let me guess, you shouldn't warn obvious vandals, but IPs who barely vandalized should be given a warning? MarioGalaxyDeath has a price. I've paid it... 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's true that a warning won't stop most vandals, and if you've got a guy who's goin' on a spree or somesuch, then yea, a warning's probably not gonna do anything. Still, I don't think that's a good reason to delete this template -- there's no harm in a single warning. – Defiant Elements +talk 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just realized that. I removed the tag. Thanks for explaing it to me, DE. MarioGalaxyDeath has a price. I've paid it... 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's true that a warning won't stop most vandals, and if you've got a guy who's goin' on a spree or somesuch, then yea, a warning's probably not gonna do anything. Still, I don't think that's a good reason to delete this template -- there's no harm in a single warning. – Defiant Elements +talk 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but a few users here (after I didn't QDV; afterwards, when I gave IPs warnings, they said I shouldn't do so anymore) have been saying that I shouldn't waste my time warning a vandal. Wait, now I'm definitely confused. You see, users have said now to warn an IP, as they don't want it showing up in the recent changes. Now I feel like an idiot. Let me guess, you shouldn't warn obvious vandals, but IPs who barely vandalized should be given a warning? MarioGalaxyDeath has a price. I've paid it... 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is a single, to the point warning not in keeping with QDV? QDV is meant to prevent people from trolling vandals, not to prevent someone from warning an IP that their edit(s) may have been construed as vandalism. – Defiant Elements +talk 00:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
What gives[edit]
Why the reversion? --Sky (t · c · w) 01:21, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Why did you remove the box? And aren't you inactive? BNK [E|T|C] 21:28, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Because we don't need boxes on our talk pages. As to the second question: How does being inactive have anything to do with anything? --Sky (t · c · w) 22:51, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
- You aren't inactive? BNK [E|T|C] 22:56, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
- You must have missed the note in this page history… Oh, and the fact that you didn't answer my question. That's cute. --Sky (t · c · w) 23:03, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
- If you were truly inactive, then this would not be much of a bother. My surprise was positive, as in "Hey, you're back! :D", by the way, but judging by your recent edits, you're only active as a pest on talk pages, opposing the general consensus. What up widdat? BNK [E|T|C] 00:05, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
- You must have missed the note in this page history… Oh, and the fact that you didn't answer my question. That's cute. --Sky (t · c · w) 23:03, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
- You aren't inactive? BNK [E|T|C] 22:56, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Because we don't need boxes on our talk pages. As to the second question: How does being inactive have anything to do with anything? --Sky (t · c · w) 22:51, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Why[edit]
Did we stopping using this? Blindcolours TONDA GOSSA. 17:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
- Yes, because for vandals, warnings are ineffective, and for other cases, we don't need such a template to warn someone. Omega Tyrant
19:02, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
How about we delete this now[edit]
This page is horribly outdated. SW:QDV and SW:AGF make this completely unnecessary, as stated above. Also stated above is the fact that this basically hasn't been used for a really, really long time. Air Conditioner 
I am the air con. 14:22, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Sure. Keel all useless things. --RoyboyX Talk 14:23, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
If we deleted it, would it not disappear in all places it was used? It's going to have to stay, I'm afraid. Toast 
ltimatum
14:28, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
It only links to two places, so it's easily replaced by text. We were able to change everything for, when example, we switched to the new icons, and this would be a lot easier to do. Air Conditioner I am the air con. 14:30, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- If it's a template that has been used, then allow it to stay in the form of a template. Toast ltimatum
14:31, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
I think these policies are important, so why delete this template? Dots The Kirby 
14:32, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Because as AirCon just said, lack of use. And I think we can replace the instances where this is used with text. --RoyboyX Talk 14:33, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- If it doesn't need to be changed into raw text, don't bother. You're fighting for very little, here. If I were you, I'd pack my bags and move on, this is pointless. Toast ltimatum 14:35, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- Well, I want to actually get something done instead of having nothing happen like in Category talk:Disambiguation, Talk:Newcomer, and Template talk:IRC. Air Conditioner
I am the air con. 14:38, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- With the former and latter, action should take place there, as having consistency with disambiguations is helpful, and the IRC template should die. Newcomer, I couldn't care less about. This template, there is no reason to delete it, "Actually getting something done" is not a reason to delete something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToastUltimatum (talk • contribs) 14:41, October 27, 2012
- Also to get rid of unnecessary stuff. If I made a template to display a recipe for chocolate chip muffins, it would be deleted in an instant. Even though this is slightly more relevant to editing, it's just as unnecessary and therefore should be deleted. Air Conditioner I am the air con. 14:44, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- Also to get rid of unnecessary stuff. If I made a template to display a recipe for chocolate chip muffins, it would be deleted in an instant. Even though this is slightly more relevant to editing, it's just as unnecessary and therefore should be deleted. Air Conditioner
- With the former and latter, action should take place there, as having consistency with disambiguations is helpful, and the IRC template should die. Newcomer, I couldn't care less about. This template, there is no reason to delete it, "Actually getting something done" is not a reason to delete something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToastUltimatum (talk • contribs) 14:41, October 27, 2012
- Your recipes template would be killed straight away because it would be useless here. This template has been used. So, while it is never to be used again, it doesn't need to be deleted, nor should it. Toast ltimatum 14:47, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- It's just unnecessary. The only times I can find it being used are just to demonstrate how it works, or that it exists. And besides, a recipe template is very useful. Haven't you ever wondered how to make delicious muffins? Air Conditioner I am the air con. 15:01, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- It's just unnecessary. The only times I can find it being used are just to demonstrate how it works, or that it exists. And besides, a recipe template is very useful. Haven't you ever wondered how to make delicious muffins? Air Conditioner
- Your recipes template would be killed straight away because it would be useless here. This template has been used. So, while it is never to be used again, it doesn't need to be deleted, nor should it. Toast
Unfortunately I known that SmashPeter's talk page also had this template which we warned him about his vandalism a year ago, so I don't think this template is completely unused or useless. Dots The Kirby 14:59, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- Again, we can just replace it with text. Air Conditioner I am the air con. 15:01, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- Why. Not even bothering with a question mark. Toast ltimatum 15:07, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- To solve the problem YOU stated as "This template has been used." I think that might have something to do with it...Air Conditioner I am the air con. 15:45, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
- To solve the problem YOU stated as "This template has been used." I think that might have something to do with it...Air Conditioner
- Why. Not even bothering with a question mark. Toast
I would like to insert a general comment here about templates like these that are basically canned responses: their usefulness is proportional to the size of the wiki and number of cases where it is applicable. I agree that in our current state we don't need a canned response for generic vandalism, as a personalized warning is far more useful and we don't currently have enough cases that people get snowed under trying to warn the miscreants. Will we need to remake this when we get bigger and have more people to deal with? Unanswerable.
I will also note that the template is supposed to be sustituted, and so replacing it with text is what's supposed to happen. Toomai Glittershine 
The Researcher 16:31, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Keep I was one of the most frequent users of this template back in the day. While SW:QDV says that we should assume good faith and report vandals to admins, there are cases when users may be doing editing tests and be unaware that their edits are saved. Another thing to note is that without some kind of warning that shows up on a vandal's talk page, they may not be aware of their blocks (especially if they are an infrequent vandal and their block is only a day or so). The reason it is rarely used is because, as Toomai said, we don't have much vandalism right now. But unless the case is a long time vandal like Poopy or SmashPeter, it's important to make the vandal aware of their actions and the consequences of such behavior. Mr. Anon
talk 18:55, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
To clarify one more thing: SW:QDV says nothing about warnings. It mainly refers to behavior that may make the situation work. This, for example, is a situation where the policy would apply. Simply warning a vandal of the consequences of their actions in a calm and non-trolling manner is not. Mr. Anontalk 19:00, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Maybe we can expand the parameters of the template so it doesn't include only vandals. Other users might be involved in misdemeanors such as edit wars, flaming, etc. Or is that what the violation template is supposed to be? 
Green Mario 00:29, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
