MediaWiki talk:Anoneditwarning

CUR, I realise that while mine provides less information about TK and his habits, I am assuming that anyone editing or WIGOing without logging in already knows of TK and his stalker-like tendencies (seeing as how he recently blocked people for WIGOing, rather than for being innocent bystanders). EddyP 14:50, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I didn't even know about the existance of TK before I was here a few months. --" 14:53, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I put in a link exposing his dastardliness to one and all.EddyP 14:56, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Please, no CP-centric junk on a screen that comes up in many non-CP situations. I re-worded it, hopefully people will still realize what it means.  ħ uman  14:57, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * If you really, really want to, link the "someone" to conservapedia:sysops/TK, or wherever it is, and "other sites" to conservapedia. If you really think you must.  ħ uman  14:58, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Fine then :(. At least this way, TK won't have the satisfaction of knowing how much we fear him. EddyP 14:59, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I like the flashing one. Certainly a good memo to log in. Is it possible to get in there that RW doesn't use checkuser or whatever it is or is it unecessary info?  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 15:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Please no flashing. It's evil -- Nx  talk 15:05, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I unblinked it - anyone who doesn't mind editing as an IP will have that seizure-inducing thing flashing at them the whole time. Do we really want to put them through that?  ħ uman  15:27, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes?  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 15:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Since we encourage people to sign up, we should consider this as a warning to signed-up users who are not logged in before we consider it as an annoyance to anonymous users. 15:50, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * That's why it's big, red and bold. Blinking is evil -- Nx  talk 15:54, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Be more specific, please... 16:01, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I hate it because it's effing anoying. -- Nx  talk 16:03, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * If the targets of this message (avid CPers who have user accounts) can't read a big bold red "WARNING", making it flash is not likely to get their attention more. Also, while we like people to join up, people who edit as IPs are perfectly acceptable here.  ħ uman  16:11, 4 February 2009 (EST)

I preferred the ferrets links (ceiling cat, pron)!  ħ uman  16:14, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Come on with the edit warring, people.  ħ uman  16:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * By Darwin's hat, will you leave it alone! --" 16:39, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * No. 16:40, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Than you have forfeited all blocking and promotion rights for this one. --" 16:42, 4 February 2009 (EST)

I think the "If they do, they will use this information to block your IP address, even if you stick up for them." is too CP-centric. The rest of it can be applied to general internets privacy issues and then humorously wikilinked to CP-related stuff. Neveruse513 16:52, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Edit warring
People, this is painful to watch. Please discuss the changes that you want to make. KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 16:49, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I want it to say You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history, allowing anyone who wants to take advantage of that information to interfere with your activities on other sites where they might track such information. If they do, they will use this information to block your IP address, even if you stick up for them. You have been warned. --" 16:52, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ditto. 16:53, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * So you are for my idea or against it? --" 16:55, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * The only change I would make is to remove the last sentence, like Neveruse513 said. The red box is a good addition. 17:00, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I agree with Neveruse513 above, and thus think that Nx's version is the best so far. There's always scope for a CP-related link or some text, though. KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 16:55, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * No to CUR's version. "Block your IP address" looks like it's talking about blocking at this site.  & What's "even if you stick up for them" about?  Sounds more like a personal anecdote than a significant issue.   17:03, 4 February 2009 (EST)

I've got some qualms about this. The warning only applies to people who are contributing at CP as well as here, most of whom probably already have RW accounts & already know about the CP block risk. On the other hand, the first message we're giving to new editors at RW (many of whom may not know or care about CP) is a big warning that editing at this site might lead to negative consequences elsewhere. It's not a great welcome.

Some kind of reminder is appropriate, but I think all it needs to say is that, in lieu of a user name, your IP address will be recorded and will be visible to any users of RW. 16:59, 4 February 2009 (EST)


 * Not necessarily, some people wouldn't like their IPs recorded even if they don't contribute to CP -- Nx  talk 17:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I depinked the background, I think this is pretty "obvious" without that.  ħ uman  17:13, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I like it...but can't it have just a hint of SPOV? Neveruse513 17:15, 4 February 2009 (EST)

With the old text:

W A R N I N G

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history, allowing anyone who wants to take advantage of that information to interfere with your activities on other sites where they might track such information. To protect your privacy, please log in or create an account.


 * too much text IMHO -- Nx  talk 17:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * I agree. "Warning you are not logged in" is enough to help all the CPers remember to log in; the brief explanation of "why" ought to help anyone else decide how to proceed.  ħ uman  17:26, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Inferring that showing your IP could interfere with surfing pr0n is just disingenuous. Neveruse513 17:28, 4 February 2009 (EST)

CEILING CAT! --" 17:27, 4 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ceiling cat adds SPOV and the text is succinct and to the point. Approve. Neveruse513 17:30, 4 February 2009 (EST)

It was not so much the box as the cat I hated
Just complaining. 01:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about:

? 08:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The colour of the eye clashes with that of the box. 08:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Better? 09:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I still prefer Ceiling Cat. 09:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the text wraps on both lines, which looks ugly. 09:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've removed the br. -- Nx  / talk 12:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bETCusT5kNM But the cat came back. . .] 13:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)