Template talk:Dont remove warnings

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Do we actually have anything like a policy that says users can't remove warnings from their talk page?

I don't have a problem with it, and especially when people get spammed with generic warnings I am not surprised they feel inclined to remove them... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think removing warnings from a talk page in good faith is not a problem. But as you probably know, the ones that actually really need to have a dossier, are inclined to remove the stain on their reputation. I'm assuming this template is for them :). Siebrand 06:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
And giving them yet another template is going to improve the situation, how exactly? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not really know. As you may have seen the template was created by User:Lar a while ago. Best ask him? I at least have not used the template at any time... Siebrand 07:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of this template?[edit]

I think we don't have a policy about this, and if we do we should not. If we don't have a policy, this particular templated message might not be a good idea. Perhaps we should delete it? If we keep it, I'd put back part of this dif [1] (the part about if you see this text you're editing the master copy not the user page) ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I put back that comment. I didn't think we needed it anymore, but if you think it should be there then it's cool. These warnings should always be subst'd anyway. The policy we do have does mention it, but I think this template does need to be reworded. The line "If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page" should definitly change as I think most wouldn't call it vandalism or would block people because of it. If we keep this, it should do what the policy page does and simply mention removing warnings is discouraged. (I think we should have something for those new users that delete warnings as soon as they see them without any response.) Rocket000 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a template gadget that can be used somewhere which will warn of not substing if we went that way but no, we don't normally subst the warning templates here... they're multilingual after all. Still, this template doesn't fit the overall vibe here, I did it long ago when I first got involved here. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No? Well, anyways, I'm fine with deleting this template. I never used it and I don't think I ever would. If the user's constant removal becomes a problem I'd probably just write them my own message. It's rare enough of an occasion where a template isn't necessary, at least to me. Templates are overused and I find just writing a sentence or two works much better (granted they speak English). That's one good thing about temps. on Commons though—the multilingual part. Rocket000 08:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
+1 delete!!! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've used it a couple of times and the feedback was terrible. I don't use it any longer. We don't need templates that give bad feedback. We can just ask people to archive their pages. Patrícia msg 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this template is appropriate either, it is basically demanding that people 'wear' warnings given by others. Why? They have implicitly acknowledged they have seen the warning (more so than if it had been removed by an automatic archive bot), and it is in their page history if they ever dispute that they were warned. --Tony Wills 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea of message templates in general is a good one, I feel (although not everyone agrees), as we are multilingual and if one guesses wrong, there are other templates for the receiver to choose from. But clearly this particular one hasn't worked out very well at all. So do we nuke it (and its siblings in other languages) from orbit and clean up the places where it was linked (or perhaps subst it as needed?), or do we do the standard delete discussion or what? :) No one, not even the creator of it, (moi for those not paying attention! :) ) seems to like it any more... ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I say we just delete it as this talk page can serve as our deletion discussion. Someone can run a bot to subst all those in use so we don't alter history. If people feel a need for it later, they can make a less demanding friendlier one. Rocket000 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I fired up AWB and I confess, I'm not totally clear on what to do. What I am finding are that there are a fair number of invocations of Template:Dont remove warnings/lang... if we subst those away, and get rid of the template itself in the language variants, we then lose the language "transparency" for users who don't speak english as their primary lang. (in many cases, the en version of the template already WAS subst'd as the text is already on the talk page...) So... ??? ... I wonder if we are "stuck" leaving it all in place and all we can do is deprecate its use with big red text? Or maybe make it much friendlier NOW, instead of deprecating? thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, there was only one transclusion of the template that wasn't already a subst'ed text and wasn't on, for instance, the tracking page where we work on message templates, but was rather in user space. I fixed that with Larbot. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative wording for friendly version[edit]

"Hi, I noticed that you removed a warning message from your talk page, I hope that you read it first and responded in an appropriate way :-). The warning will of course remain in your talk page's history, but you could consider archiving your talk page regularly instead of deleting material (this can be done with MiszaBot). If the warning has been removed without the problem having been dealt with, do not be supprised if you get another warning :-) --~~~~"

Insert links and correct spelling as appropriate :-) --Tony Wills 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This template is against Wikipedia policy. Users can remove anything from their talk pages[edit]

See en:WP:TALK. Users can remove anything from their talk pages, and they can do it without archiving it. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. And this template is being abused by some editors, who falsely claim it is a rule. There is no legitimate reason to force users to keep warning templates on their talk pages. The guideline COM:TALK recommends, but does not require, users to keep warning templates. In my opinion, this template should be deprecated as it serves no purpose other than to brand users as malfeasants. - MrX 21:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Previous discussion here already agreed that this template was not valid. The creator of this template, Lar, wrote: "No one, not even the creator of it, (moi for those not paying attention! :) ) seems to like it any more..."
Elvey solved the problem of how to deal with this invalid template by deprecating it. See this December 16, 2012 diff. Elvey added this tag: {{deprecated}} --Timeshifter (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)