Template talk:Spam-warn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Am looking to clean up some of these CSD nomination templates. It looks like Template:Spam-notice is redundant, and covered much better by this template. Anybody bothered if I merge. If no response after weekend will merge, and redirect Spam-notice here. Cheers Lethaniol 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Am going to merge spam-notice into spam-warn-deletion instead I have been told this is generally used by people when they delete on CSD basis. Lethaniol 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability of?[edit]

Is there a specific reason for the generated headers to have "notability of" or should it be removed?  ::mikmt 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh - sorry my mistake - should not be there was left in when code was copy/pasted from Template:nn-warn - where it of course makes sense. So have removed. If you can think of a more suitable title (at the moment just the article name) then please add. Cheers Lethaniol 09:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

About revert[edit]

I suppose I shouldn't have used popups for this but I did revert the latest syntax tweak. When the header option is on, this causes incorrect formatting. Pascal.Tesson 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Guerilla Talk Radio[edit]

pls help I need to edit my article and i am somehow locked out from editing can u adviseHenslee57 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Change "which" to "that" per WP:COPYEDIT. Anthony Rupert (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{Editprotected}} My requested edit is here. -- IRP 23:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some background and explanation for this. Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} If this edit is made, it will be more consistent with the other deletion notice templates. -- IRP 17:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Requesting this edit as the talk page will not be resolved correctly if used on other namespaces, but using {{TALKPAGENAMEE}} will fix this problem. --Icep (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

edit request[edit]

{{edit protected}} Request to change icon to File:Icon delete.svg (at size 60px) per Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg). Just did this with a bunch of of other speedy-notification templates, this one alone is protected for some reason. Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please revert this change. Numerous people have opposed changing the icon in that (and other) discussions, and there is clearly no concensus for the new icon. PC78 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed that discussion and agree that there has not been sufficient consensus has not been for the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the references to "click here"[edit]

Please remove the image and text which instructs users to "click here". Authoritative hypertext style and accessibility guides recommend against "click here" links for some very sensible reasons. See for example "Don't use "click here" as link text", the HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and the Style Guide for Online Hypertext, all from W3C and/or Tim Berners-Lee:

Good link text should not be overly general; don't use "click here." Not only is this phrase device-dependent (it implies a pointing device) it says nothing about what is to be found if the link if followed. Instead of "click here", link text should indicate the nature of the link target, as in "more information about sea lions" or "text-only version of this page".
When calling the user to action, use brief but meaningful link text that:
  • provides some information when read out of context
  • explains what the link offers
  • doesn't talk about mechanics
  • is not a verb phrase

Furthermore, the "click here" image is not accessible; users of screen readers, other text-to-speech systems, and text-only browsers will see (or hear) the sentence containing the image as the rather unintelligible "If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, Speedy delete contest button.png." There is no reason why the instructions for contesting a speedy deletion should not be provided as text in a manner which makes doesn't make assumptions about navigation mechanics but makes it clear what the link points to. For example:

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may use a preformatted place on the talk page to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted.

Similarly, the text "the article's talk page" should be made a hyperlink to the article's talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Low priority edit request[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please delete the word "the" from "You can also visit the", since there is another "the" inside the following wikilink. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2012[edit]

Not sure why this specific template is protected and not it's cousins, but I think the instance of File:Speedy delete contest button.png (A screenshot of a macintosh alert pop-up button, full of little jpg artifacts) be replaced with it's SVG version, File:Speedy delete contest button.svg

(ƒî)» 06:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, though I would not that your signature is actually longer than this request was. Please consider altering it to be less so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2012[edit]

{{edit protected}} Can an admin remove all instances of "article" in the template and replace with "page". G11 does not only cover articles, and this wording could be confusing to new users who recieve it. The criterion uses page, so I don't see why this template shouldn't. Also the "If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising" wording seems a little off, it's not the subject that's blatant advertising, it's the content of the page. Thanks, 137.43.188.139 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There are still two occurrences of the word "article" in the second paragraph. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2012[edit]

1 where it reads This has been done under the [[WP:CSD#Articles|criteria for speedy deletion]], because the page seems this should be changed to criteria for speedy deletion. 2 Where is reads Please read [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11|the general criteria for speedy deletion]], particularly this should be changed to the general criteria for speedy deletion.

Begonia Brandbygeana (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Swarm X 03:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2013[edit]

Can you add ~~~~ in between </includeonly> and Template:Spam-warn? Thanks. (See the code in my edit.) buffbills7701 21:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I don't know what you mean by "the code in my edit". Please would you make the appropriate amendment to the template's sandbox? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)