Template talk:Warning
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
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
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
Why the reversion? --Sky (t · c · w) 01:21, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
