Knowledge:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 10

2244:

Other than categories, which are used to group together schools from the same province. In this case, the province (category) is BC, and the school board (NavBox) is Vancouver. Why must we spend 90% of our time fighting deletions? Is there a quota for people to submit a certain number of articles or templates for deletion per month? Look at the articles that use this template: would deleting the template make the article better, or worse? I think most people would agree the article gains in having a useful (and standardized!) navigation box, therefore let's not delete the navbox! --

2706:

2478:

1585:. Hello hondas, I will appreciate if you can comment on my remarks and arguments to keep, and not by the look of the template. I know it seems this thread is long, but maybe you'll find out that: A) We are not looking for this to be "a massive forewarning template" B) We wanted to be Limited Use, and C) Applicable by Sysop Only. Thanks for reading all this. BTW, The test had to be put on hold due to a couple users bent on deleting any templates (including those meant for spam) from the test page. Meantime, I'd like to report that the template seems to be working fine at the 935:, you would understand why it could be necessary sometimes. Third, being called "spammer" would drive away more newbies, than newbie editors that might read this warning. Fourth, It will force people to enter referenced information (Very important). Fifth, Just because you know Knowledge is editable, it doesn't mean that everybody knows that they can edit it. So, a warning like this will actually let people know that Knowledge IS editable and encourage them to do it within WP guidelines. Thanks for your consideration. 1499:

page had been edited in the interim by many newbies that were mainly adding to the spam and to the lack of references. I was asked to clean up the page. So, I did. I eliminated everything that was considered suspicious links and non neutral POVs that lacked of references. I even worked on the page text to improve and make it understandable in laymen's terms. The result was a clean, concise, and free of spam article page. For all that time and effort, one particular user going under the name

1430:, where this newbie (me), got this experienced and most vicious sock puppeteer vandal blocked. The fact that I am functioning at WP and responding to you, indicates that the community was presented with a case that happens often enough. In addition, they also reviewed those false accusations made against me, found no fault and let me go. I certainly wouldn't be able to appeal to you for support to include this template today. Sorry, if I sound like I am ranting. 2780:; (2) there is no category equivalent to OCDSB; (3) schools are just as notable (or should be just as notable) as many other articles in wikipedia; (4) way too many articles are nonimated for deletion; (5) navigation boxes are a common way on Knowledge to link articles together that are very closely related; (6) article about schools introduce wikipedia to students and end up providing them some feeling of ownership.-- 2551:; (2) there is no category equivalent to OCCSB; (3) schools are just as notable (or should be just as notable) as many other articles in wikipedia; (4) way too many articles are nonimated for deletion; (5) navigation boxes are a common way on Knowledge to link articles together that are very closely related; (6) article about schools introduce wikipedia to students and end up providing them some feeling of ownership.-- 1256:) without the need to protect the page and thwart its evolution. Also, by being available to sysops only, it will not constitute "a massive forewarning template" as stated on Mr. Salaskan concerns. I pray you change your mind, and that instead, we focus the attention to the toning down of the wording of this template. If you agree, I urge you to make a suggestion. Thanks for your time. 2184:. A template that does nothing more than what the category already accomplishes. I agree that categories and templates can co-exist, but only where the template organizes the information in a different and helpful way -- here, the template simply replicates the category and is redundant. Too many articles are infested with superfluous templates, and this is a classic example. 2323:; (2) schools are just as notable (or should be just as notable) as many other articles in wikipedia; (3) way too many articles are nonimated for deletion; (4) navigation boxes are a common way on Knowledge to link articles together that are very closely related; (5) article about schools introduce wikipedia to students and end up providing them some feeling of ownership.-- 826:" was so much vandalized and spammed, that it came to a point that some of the spammers agreed to put their own names onto an unreferenced section of their own. Totally shameless.. The difference between them and me, is that I put someone else's name for ignorance of the WP rules. Here are just a few examples, see it for yourselves: 1064:" page and I had no idea that I was stepping into a mine field where a major edit war was taking place. I chose to stay at WP to discuss and argue about my innocence, but regardless, I was still accused of spam, sock puppetry, you name it. The fact that my antagonizer was blocked and that I came out absolved by the 1498:

for the last 48 hours. At First, I Prodded it because I thought the lack of references and the English writing was poor. Since, as you Prod a page you notify its contributors, surely enough, a bunch of them came out to defend the article; 1 asked to modify, 1 to delete, the rest opposed deletion. The

813:

I think this template can be very useful to some article pages at WP, that have been heavily vandalized and spammed by 3rd parties for pure financial gain. Ironically, when I came in the first time to WP as a newbie, I made a mistake that got me into a lot of trouble. Believe me, a lot! If I had seem

2751:

if there are some schools that are not considered notable, thay can be not linked in the template. (left as black) Thus becoming unlinked in the articles(s) for the ones that _Are_ notable. A navigation box is a very good way to present the information in related places, perhaps more useful than a

2243:

Bully. Thanks for trying to shoehorn your view of what is valid and not valid. In the meantime, note that "presents a nicely-standardized format" is a very valid reason in itself. In addition, navigation boxes are a common way on Knowledge to link articles together that are very closely related.

1220:

page to see if: A) It's going to warn spammers, B) It's going to let newbies know that contributions to this page without verified information, it's not a good idea, C) It's going to re-establish civility among the participants of a highly debated page. That said, this would only apply to pages that

2886:

Highly unlikely use. Welcomes are only given to new users, who are most likely unfamiliar with editing pages, let alone replying on the appropriate talk page with a template they had to search through categories to get find. On the occassion a returning or established user is welcomed by a template

1426:" page where I was also viciously attacked after making an unrefenced entry, otherwise, I wouldn't be here on this debate advocating for its LIMITED inclusion by SYSOP ONLY. If you are not entirely sure, as you said above, of what I am getting at, I urge you to please read this incident report at 930:

is too wordy and it wouldn't deter me to stop. Second, it doesn't give me the necessary warning to take a good look at what I am about to do. Remember, I am not advocating for this template to be used everywhere. I am suggesting limited use, and maybe applicable by sysop intervention only. If you

2705:

2477:

1917:

and all the parameters were placed inside the articles. Placing the parameters inside makes it easier for the average editor to add information to and it ensures that every country article uses the same standard. Before standardization, many countries' articles had various looking single use

1020:

Mr. Salaskan, wth respect, I see your concerns and they are valid, however, my proposal is NOT to make it "a massive forewarning template", but to make it available to sysops in order to warn new users, including those who are already experienced, engaged on an edit war to include unreferenced

1068:

from any wrong doing, indicates that I have a supporting case that clearly demonstrates what can happen to you if you don't know what you are doing. And only god knows, how many newbies have edited a page without the knowledge of rules, been accused of spam and driven away by over protective

1503:

came in and undo everything, re-posted the links and reverted much of what I did. I warned, I tagged him and gave him a chance to reflect. He still chose to remove tags and re-post links again. This is sort of vandalism from editors that feel they "own" a page is what prevents newbies from

1474:) But, they have all adhered to the call to stop adding nonsense and discuss why they need to change technical terms, especially those newbies. In my view the template works on a complex and rather technical page like the mastering page, and if you don't mind , I would like to propose my 1073:

page and by either experienced members or a sysop intervention. if you'd like to tone down a bit the writing , I invite you to do so and that would be OK. But, keep in mind that since it is for special circumstances, it needs to be firm. Thanks again for your consideration.

818:" (Notice that I already used this template). I am really glad I found it, and I want to warn newcomers that unreferenced information and personal ideas, have no place at this page. If you want to understand my on personal incident you can read the entire incident at 3069:, which contains text instructions for using this template to thank the welcomer for the welcome (this is presumably how all the new users found this template in the first place). I'm not sure how this will affect the outcome of the TfD. Maybe userfy the template? -- 2969:}}) than one would want to repeatedly type by hand. Giving a new user that information with a template is relatively quick and painless, and gets the job done. Hand-typing it every time wouldn't really make sense, and would probably deter a lot of casual welcomers!-- 1221:

already exist and it won't hinder the process of the creation of new pages by newbies and/or experienced editors at WP. Also, this would only be another tool available to sysops, when things get out of hand and order needs to be established (See examples:

990:, so that has got nothing to do with this template. Also, if you had an incident, that's a shame, but it doesn't justify the need for a massive forewarning template directed specifically at newbies to scare them off (which is in fact what it does). 1187:

etc) which are meant to serve as incrementally urgent warnings. It's much more useful to target these at specific individuals rather than subject all new users to aggressive warnings - if a large amount of vandals target a specific article got to

1918:

templates. Now a reader see the same basic look from country to country. This template is a step back ward and if it survives it will only change over time (usually for the worse) from the single standard look of all other country articles. —

1907:. This is a redirect of Infobox Country and by its nature it is single use. Its goal (I assume) was to save 3kb worth of space in the article. About a year ago, all country templates such as this were converted over to use one standard— 1389:

start warning with the first template. Really, if I got the template as a newbie, I would not be able to select my "crime" from that laundry list of offenses. Do you have any problems with the above-listed templates? It is probable that

2289:

per Qyd. Helpful navigation template. The articles already exist; if the schools are notable, then nominate them for deletion, and if they're deleted, remove them from the template. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

1527:. Also, newbies will now have to think if their contribution is properly referenced or not. If this works, I urge this forum to please support including the use of this template to chaotic and troubled pages like the 1478:

members, to vote to keep or delete. Therefore, more time will be requested of this forum. I would appreciate you don't oppose that. BTW, did you read all my arguments on top? Thanks for your time.

982:

these points aren't valid at all in my opinion. Even if you use this template sparingly, it is a very subjective matter where to place it and where not to. It is against the spirit of Knowledge's

3313:

Unencylopedic, used by one user only for amusement on user page. It was recently moved from the userspace. Should be either subst'd onto the user page or moved back from template namespace, but

1091:

applicable by sysops. I.e. if a page is semiprotected, yet still some new registered users vandalise it, we could apply that template as a temporary measure. Let's list that in the /doc part?

2196:

per Qyd; as well, the box helps to illustrate where work is needed. Categories are great for tracking information that is already present, but do not help in pointing out what is missing. --

1446:. Commented messages are more than sufficient for warning new users. We should welcome new editors, instead of chasing them away with a big, ugly box with a long list of rules. 3089:

New users won't be able to find it, if they do find it, why wouldn't they just type "thanks," and besides, it makes implications that the user will like Knowledge ;-). --

3007: 1069:

editors, never to come back again. We just don't know the rate of incidence. I hope you reconsider my proposal to use the debate template on extreme situations like the

1550:. This means that I need more time. If these 2 users are proven guilty, they will be out of the equation and the experiment will resume. Thanks all for your patience. 42: 2731:. It would be great if you could refrain from name calling; please limit your comments to the content of the discussion, as opposed to other contributors. Thanks. 2503:. It would be great if you could refrain from name calling; please limit your comments to the content of the discussion, as opposed to other contributors. Thanks. 2269:. It would be great if you could refrain from name calling; please limit your comments to the content of the discussion, as opposed to other contributors. Thanks. 37: 3185:

I'm busy fighting an urge to give you a welcome template now... Userfication would seem like a good option, and if this is closed as userfication the nonlink on

1468:

page, where dialog, civility, as well as the desire to spam with external links, have actually receded. This doesn't mean that there are no more attacks (See:

1602: 1021:

articles and links to other websites. If you read my incident you would understand how this is easily possible, and if you take a look at this warring edits:

3354:

Sorry i didnt know thats why its hooked it up to my userspace only, not categorized, and not intended for public consumption. Its for personal use only

1216:. If so, do you believe that a newbie will be encouraged to contribute to an existing page by taking more steps? Then, let's use your suggestion on the 2777: 2548: 2320: 2752:

catagory if presented in all relivant places. It also avoids the need to place the same information in multiple places where it can get out of sync.

2038: 3173: 970: 891: 777: 361: 353: 21: 505: 533:

Not used anywhere, and is actually spelt wrong. The correct spelling is Independent. This template is linked to the template above. -

513: 381:

Not used anywhere, and is actually spelt wrong. The correct spelling is Independent. This template is linked to the template below. -

344: 303: 1105:

per my comments on the template's talk page - the spam vandals that this is aimed at will just ignore it, and people who make honest

2172:- most articles are already in place. A navbox serves, as the name says, for navigation, and has its advandages over categories. -- 562: 496: 455: 2658:

Most of these schools aren't notable, and will never need an article. A navigation box isn't necessary when a category exists. —

2430:

Most of these schools aren't notable, and will never need an article. A navigation box isn't necessary when a category exists. —

2159:

Most of these schools aren't notable, and will never need an article. A navigation box isn't necessary when a category exists. —

17: 3428: 3341: 3113: 2050: 1606: 2131: 2023: 1773: 3288: 2728: 2500: 2266: 157: 3404:

I suppose the Template, which now redirects just to Bloodpack's user space, can be speedily deleted under Criteria R2. --

3200: 3080: 1519:

to that clean, spam-free state I had going on the page before. Let me apply this template as it's working so far on the

1266:

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. However, shouldn't the following be enough, since they are more specific?

711:- just try adding "Meanwhile, please be bold in updating articles" to the end of the template. It's rather incongruous. 2861: 2206: 1708: 1140: 204: 3279: 3240: 3038:

per Daniel Case. Over-templatfication. Just type it (surely this is easier than endlessly searching for a template).

3296: 1060:, you will realize that a call for civility and good faith needs to be established. I made a newbie mistake on the " 2693: 2465: 2231: 1547: 965: 886: 772: 274:

per above. Is it possible to go ahead and speedy close this? It seems unlikely that anyone will want to keep it. --

1961: 1879: 1475: 3447: 3256: 3230: 2852: 2825: 2809: 2799: 2630: 2596: 2570: 2368: 2342: 2122: 2097: 2081: 2071: 1845: 1819: 1699: 1674: 1658: 1648: 695: 651: 613: 587: 471: 445: 319: 293: 76: 3446: