This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sending completely new users to Special:ListUsers comes across as slightly intimidating, in my opinion. How about the template proposing them to check availability of another username at the SUL Info? — YerpoEh? 13:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, especially since every account is global now so even if there is only a local account you still can't create the global account. However I think a wikilink is probably better than an external link (tools:~quentinv57/sulinfo/). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Ooh, I didn't know that it's possible to link to the toolserver like that, thanks. — YerpoEh? 08:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Uw-unsourced templates are counterproductive to the encyclopedia
The uw-unsourced templates seem pretty WP:BITEish. Aside from their language, which misinterprets WP:V as "every piece of information must have a citation" and not "please cite reliable sources when a statement if a statement is likely to be challenge", it's hard for me to see them as more than impersonal responses to the contributions of newbies. If an experienced editor added a piece of information another editor interpreted as controversial, the editors would likely discuss the issue with specific language on the talk page. Slapping a uw-unsourced template on a newbie's talk page seems like an impersonal way to shut what could have been a productive conversation down. Is there any reason to keep these templates around? It seems far too easy for a protective editor to use them to push newcomers away from their article. (I've noticed this issue has been raised a couple of months ago couple of months ago, which primarily focused on the misinterpretation of WP:V and not the inappropriateness of having an "unsourced information" template at all.) --Lunar Jesters(talk) 13:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the idea of it is to be used when the information they added did need a citation. If editors use it when they shouldn't, that should be addressed with that editor. If the wording implies every piece of information needs a citation, it should just be updated to fix that rather than removing the templates altogether. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I just can't think of any situation where a template would be more appropriate than addressing the specific piece of information. As a hypothetical example, "Thanks for contributing to the coffee article. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that suggests coffee can cause pancreatic cancer. I've tried to verify the fact you added, but I couldn't find anything on Google or Google Books. Could you point me in the direction of where you learned that coffee causes pancreatic cancer?" This sort of personalized response seems much more likely to lead editors to learn about Wikipedia policies and continue contributing productively to the encyclopedia. An impersonal template is more likely to put editors on the defensive and make them leave Wikipedia in frustration. --Lunar Jesters(talk) 16:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree we should stick to the "I undid" language. James asked what harm there was in using the "was reverted" kind of language, and the answer is that we know it makes the warning less effective. This was very heavily discussed before implementing, at this 30 day RFC. Prior to the RFC, we ran randomized, controlled tests of versions that used active voice and where the user introduced themselves, against versions that used passive voice. We ended up proposing the current "I reverted" language because it was more effective at driving away vandals and introducing the rules. Considering that, using TW and Huggle, it is far more common to revert and warn simultaneously, the gains we got in making the warnings more effective are worth the comparatively small annoyance of needing to use a separate template like {{uw-vandalism0}} in an edge case. Plus, and this part is just my personal opinion as a writer, using passive voice is bad grammar. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
When passive voice is needed, I personally prefer to use {{uw-test2}} instead of {{uw-vandalism0}} as it still assumes good faith but puts the warning at level 2 in case it really is a bad faith vandal we are dealing with. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I've come across {{uw-inline-el}}, which I think is suitable for adding to this project (at least after the bit of tidying myself and Scott Martin have done. Are there any hoops I should jump through before I add {{single notice}} to the template and add it to the list at {{single notice links}}?
While we're on the subject, would it make more sense for this to be moved to {{uw-inline-el1}}, possibly with higher levels of its own or possibly with higher levels redirecting to the uw-spam series?
I'd avoid making it into a series, unless strongly needed, as the proliferation of templates is an ongoing problem. Simplify, when possible! –Quiddity (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
uw-redlink
There used to be a useful warning template for ignorant removals of redlinks, but I see it was changed years ago and later deleted (years ago). I find myself composing a redlink removal warning frequently, so I would personally like to have it in Twinkle's choice of single issue notices. I have composed (recomposed?) such a template {{uw-redlink}}, but I am not sure of the process to incorporate it into TW. I would appreciate comments on the validity of such a user warning template as well as making it available in Twinkle. —EncMstr (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Good idea. I'm not sure how/where templates get added to Twinkle, but asking at WT:TW is the best bet - I see a few similar requests in the archives there. –Quiddity (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Flagging templates in the source code
There's recently been some back-and forth in {{uw-vandalism1}} over whether to include the <!--Template:uw-vandalism1-->:
Codename Lisaremoved the comment as it "provoked a hostile response"; even though the template expands to something that assumes good faith and doesn't mention vandalism, I can understand an editor seeing the comment and objecting to the accusation of vandalism.
Jackmcbarnrestored the comment as it's useful to know which template left the message.
Codename Lisa swappedTemplate:uw-vandalism1 for oldid=580227252, saying it "serves the same purpose but doesn't have that bad effect".
I don't understand the meaning of the oldid string; is it intended to just be an arbitrary string that someone could search for if they needed to? Or can it be used in some way I don't understand to reference the actual template?
In any case, I suspect this would (a) benefit from some wider discussion (or at least awareness), and (b) whatever conclusion is reached should probably be applied across the user warning templates, in the name of consistency.
For my part, I entirely understand Codename Lisa's objection to having the template name in the comments, but I do think we need some way of referencing the template in question.
Oldid can be used to refer to the template even without knowing the template name. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=580227252. You will see what I mean. I though by including this id, elite editors who actually need to know where the template has come from can find out, while the reader don't take offense. People who do know about this little trick are already WP:DTTR-eligible.
I find the comment which gives the subst'ed template's name quite helpful, and the obscure |oldid= certainly doesn't have the same immediacy. As to the root complaint: I find it hard to believe that a comment in the source code "provoked a hostile response". Examples? If the message was used with reason, what's to be hostile about? If the message was unjustified, apologise. IMO the original comment should stay/be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Michael. Politeness involves being gentle and delicate. Your heavy-handed treatment of either I am right or I am not is in conflict with this tenet and the purpose of this template. When it is a matter of straight talk, send a {{Uw-vandalism2}}. With this template, the purpose is to say "your edit was bad" without even mentioning "vandalism".
This is solution without a problem. There is no reason to hide the source template name. I have been around a long time and done a fair number of edits and use that information on a regular basis to determine what response to take to something another editor is done. I'm not an elite editor and have no idea what that is. So please just leave that in there. Don't make the job harder for everyone other then the mythical elite editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I partially agree, in that I can't recall this ever being a problem before. At the same time, I do recognize Codename Lisa's point insofar as the level one template is specifically designed to not use the word "vandalism". I don't think we really anticipated that the recipient would read the code. What if we changed the comment to refer to the short form, "uw-v1"?--Mojo Hand(talk) 17:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Vegaswikian that there is no evidence that this is an actual problem, but I think that Mojo Hand's solution preserves the useful feature of the commetn while avoiding any possible offense. DES(talk) 19:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The hidden line is to help idenify the template name, which is not carried over in the subst action. I believe. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 20:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the option suggested by Mojo Hand works for me if we really need to make a change. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello guys.
I love compromises and Mojo Hand's suggestion works for me. However, someone please tell me why is this comment is so important that you guys feel you can overlook hurting someone's feelings. In other words, I have been manually stripping this comment from my messages a lot lately; what harm did I do?
Ypu make it harder for someone later reviewing the talk page to determine just what template was used in a particular instance, and almost impossible to do a search to see where the template is begin used, which various people do to spot check if it is being used appropriately. DES(talk) 00:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Right (and ec) - I personally find the comments to be a useful shorthand to confirm what levels and types of messages have been sent to the user without having to read the full language of each message. I also believe some scripts use the comments in their process, though I'm not positive about that.--Mojo Hand(talk) 00:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I also agree Mojo Hand option is best, if we actually need to change anything. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I probably should have looked at the talk page before reverting. I've restored the comment because there are AV bots and scripts that depend on that HTML comment. Whatever the consensus here is, make sure you notify all the people who use those tools and their developers about the change BEFORE you make it. Legoktm (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Small problem: I do not know any of them and – no offense intended but – the guys here have so far given a weasel wordy "some script" answer. So, even if you put a gun to my head and say "call them or I'll shoot", I can't. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Huggle, ClueBot, WAVE, and probably others. You also can't just change one template, you need to change ALL of them. I disagree that a consensus has been reached, I only found this when my script stopped working, and I don't see anything wrong with the current wording. I'll leave my full thoughts below. Legoktm (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Your script stopped working? How could it stop working when there are still millions of substitutions of this template out there with the disputed HTML comment in place?
My script looked for the string "uw-vandalism1", so it kept flagging users who were receiving level 2 warnings without level 1 ones, even though they were warned properly. Legoktm (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, am I correct to assume you have permission to edit the said script? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. Legoktm (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Should I broadcast a notice in WP:AN and WP:VP? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
That would be helpful. Legoktm (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I fully understand Codename Lisa's points, and I agree that it would be better to avoid the word "vandalism". However, considering that tools such as Huggle depend on such tags to correctly identify what warnings have been issued to editors, and that it is not at all clear to me that any attempt has been made to ensure that the maintainers of such tools have been consulted, nor even informed, of this change, changing the template now is likely to cause considerable problems. Also, the problem that Codename Lisa mentions is very unlikely to be common, as most new editors will not search through the code and find the offending text. That being so, the balance of benefit has to be in keeping the status quo, at least until more has been done to avoid the problems the change will cause. Also, contrary to Codename Lisa's latest edit summary, I do not see consensus for the change in this discussion. I do see some support for the idea of the change, but I also see both comments that oppose it, and comments that indicate that, while the idea is a good one, there are disadvantages in rushing ahead. Edit-warring to keep the change in is not constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that this is a good change. The template is named "uw-vandalism1", so there is no reason to not include that. If a user gets offended, that's unfortunate, but it means people should stop using templated (or this specific one at least) notices for non-vandals/good-faith editors. Legoktm (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just fully protected the article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the issue here instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Good move. I just looked at the edit comments there and they are misleading. Contrary to the claims, there is no consensus here to change anything. From this discussion, I think there is one editor in favor of changing and everyone else opposed. That is no place near a consensus to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't consider myself to be opposed to change; I can see how there could be a problem with using the word "vandal" even in a comment (although I'd still like to see the "hostile response" Codename Lisareferred to). I do think any change needs to have thought and discussion, though – the wide use of this script by automated tools means we can't just dive in and start changing things without at least attempting to understand and mitigate the knock-on impact of such changes. —me_and 10:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I also was not strongly opposed to any change, although I wasn't convinced of the need for it either. DES(talk) 14:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Inclusion of the template name in a wikitext comment is the usual practice for all warning templates, and does not seem accusatory or otherwise problematic. Also, it appears that semi-automated tools such as Huggle rely upon the comment to identify previous warnings issued. This itself is not without difficulties: an editor might have removed prior warnings. Does Huggle consult previous revisions of talk pages? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK, it doesn't. That's an edge case though, most vandals don't remove warnings from their talk page. Legoktm (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Request to remove the |link= from Template:Uw-vandalism1 because File:Information.svg requires attribution with its license. I had done this before the edit war that it is now fullly protected from and it was only very recently that it was randomly unlinked by User:DavidLeighEllis. Thanks.
Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 02:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Where do you see that it is licensed {{PD-ineligible}}? The image used within Template:Uw-vandalism1 is File:Information.svg (as stated by Ramaksoud2000), which has the license template {{GFDL|migration=relicense}}, i.e. GFDL 1.2 with CC BY-SA 3.0); there is a similarly-named image on commons, which has the license template {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}, i.e. CC BY-SA 2.5. CC BY-SA 2.5 is identical to CC BY-SA 3.0 except for the heading ("Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.5)" or "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)"), and one paragraph at the bottom ("A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however.") which is not present in 3.0. All of these licenses require attribution. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, RedRose64. How do you do?
I know how the file is tagged. I disagree with the tag. This logo is certainly no more complex than Windows Vista's logo, which – after two deletion requests on Commons – is considered {{PD-textlogo}}. The icon in question is essentially an "i" on a filled circle; neither typeface nor simple shapes like circle are copyright-protected in U.S. laws and the shine effect is certainly not original enough. For more information, see Commons:TOO. If you are not convinced, perhaps we should request input from other experienced editors like User:Masem, User:Stefan2 and User:Magog the Ogre or take it to license review page.
Well if you believe that the license is incorrect and are willing to argue it, you are free to try to get the license changed down at Commons:Image:Information.svg. However, right now, the license requires attribution, and the good folks in Commons are pretty well versed in copyright. It can either be PD and not require attribution or CC and require attribution. Not both. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 19:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Have to agree with Ramaksoud2000 and Redrose64 here – either it gets tagged as public domain or it gets attribution; since the former hasn't happened, the latter should. —me_and 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I could equally argue that "since the former hasn't happened, the former should." At least, my argument has the merit of being supported by laws. However, changing the license while this discussion is in progress is a gross disruptive editing, which you are apparently expecting me to do. I am afraid I am unwilling to engage in disruptive editing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not telling you do anything. Do not put words into my mouth. I am saying that if you believe your position is correct and can argue it, have a discussion in Commons about it. Hence the "try to get the license changed down at Commons:Image:Information.svg." How would it be disruptive to have a discussion? The consensus here seems to be that the current license must be changed before we start acting on the change and to change it, you must discuss it in Commons. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 18:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
@codename Lisa: You couldn't do it even if you did agree since it is fully protected to stop the edit war that you were participating in. It doesn't look like you two are going to agree on this so I would suggest some form of WP:DR to form a consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Not done. As the template is currently protected to stop edit warring, any substantive change made during this period should demonstrably be the result of consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: What do you consider consensus here? WP:DRN has failed due to Codename Lisa not wishing to take part.[1] Nonetheless, the editor who made the change we're requesting be reverted has now said they don't object to reverting it,[2] which means the only objector is Codename Lisa.
Mostly I'm trying to avoid starting an RFC or similar, as I don't want the overhead, but that's the only next step I can see if this isn't sufficient consensus.
If Beeblerox doesn't respond by the time the PP expires, I'm going ahead and changing it. This is a copyright violation and Codename Lisa has gotten to the point of being disruptive, refusing to engage in any type of conversation. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 19:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
My only concern here is that edit warring not resume. I realize neither of you was involved in that edit war, but a very solid reason is needed for any edit made through full protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand... Someone created a {{PD-textlogo}}, but released it under a more restrictive license? Codename Lisa (or someone), why don't you just make a new svg to replace it and release it under the proper license? Why so much argument over something so trivial? Mojoworker (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Without meaning to take side here, I'd like to clarify a couple of things. First, a person voting "oppose" and then not participating in a DRN talk is nowhere near disruptive editing; that's his or her prerogatives. Second, a DRN discussions has several other prerequisites; without them, the volunteer may just slam it shut, though they don't do it when there is only one violation and significant hope to fix that once the talk is started. In this case, I count three violations:
"Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please". Ramaksoud2000 violated this by two direct personal attacks, two misrepresentation of the facts and giving the impression that he would have not been in DRN if the template was not edit protected; hence he has no interest in dispute resolution if he could avoid it.
"The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page". This is not the case. The proper course would have been to "request input from other experienced editors like User:Masem, User:Stefan2 and User:Magog the Ogre or take it to license review page." Strangely enough, this is CL's suggestion. Yet, DRN case states the opposite and says "Codename Lisa thought that this would be disruptive editing for some reason".
"We focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy." Again, it is obvious that the participant weren't there for a compromise. Three out of the five are literally saying we're victorious and one of them is adding where is my victory parade? For those who don't know: A consensus is state where the proponent shakes the hand of the opponent and says "thanks, it was a pleasure"; while the opponent says "pleasure was all mine".
User:TransporterMan summarizes the state of affair very succinctly: "Futile". That discussion would never have started and even if it did, it would have gone nowhere. Still, if you guys don't start discussing what actually matter, with consensus in mind, you should expect the worst punishment in Wikipedia: Not a block, ban or sanction, but finding that your only audience is a wall. Fleet Command (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
@FleetCommand:Where do suggest to take it from here? Codename Lisa believes the license is incorrect. That's fine. It may very well be. I invited him or her to have a discussion on Commons where editors experienced in these matters reside, and where the license can actually be changed because the file is actually hosted there. Codename Lisa said themselves that having a discussion there would be disruptive. I disagree and an admin suggested DRN. I go to DRN, however, Codename Lisa shuts it all down with no comment on where they would like this to go from there. They say it is the wrong venue but do not specify the venue they want. They say that the correct course of action would be to take the image to a license review is exactly what I am saying to do on Commons has they have a whole process for this and the image is there. In addition, I apologize to Codename Lisa since both of you feel I've made personal attacks however that was not my intention. What do you suggest since you think we have failed? Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 13:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a bug in mw:Echo? I received a notification when FleetCommand mentioned me today, but not when Codename Lisa mentioned me last week.
For this file, File:Information.svg, I would like to make a comparison with La trahison des images, a famous painting by René Magritte. The task when you look at the copyright status of a file is that you need to check whether you use a copyrighted portion of it or not. A pipe is not copyrightable as it is a useful object, but a painting of a pipe is clearly copyrightable. Thus, if you use the painting to create a real pipe, you are not violating the copyright of the painting. The same is true with fonts. A font is a computer program which draws letters on a screen or a paper. The computer program may be copyrighted (see Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.), but the drawn letters are not copyrighted (see Eltra Corp. v. Ringer).
You could say that an SVG file consists of three parts:
Computer instructions: The file is a computer program which generates certain shapes and may therefore be copyrighted in the same way as a computer font.
Text: The source code consists of text, and you could write the text in a "creative" way, or, say, include poetry in a comment in the source code. This code seems to have been generated by Inkscape, so I do not think that the code can be considered as creative "literature".
Output: The file outputs a drawing. In MediaWiki, this takes the form of PNG files at various resolutions.
When an SVG file is uploaded to a Wikimedia project, you need to consider all three parts, as you include the unaltered SVG file. An SVG file can only be tagged as {{PD-ineligible}} if all three parts are below the threshold of originality. However, when the file appears on a page on Wikipedia, you only use the generated PNG files. As you are not using parts 1 or 2, you only need to consider whether part 3 consists of any creative contributions.
The template {{uw-vandalism1}} uses a very small image (). You can barely see the visual effects and I think that you can hardly say that there is anything creative there. I do not think that the 25×25 pixels PNG thumbnail can be seen as something copyrightable. Therefore, it shouldn't be necessary to link to the file when the image is used at that resolution. I am also doubting that the SVG file as a whole is copyrighted, but I am unaware of any court rulings on the originality of gradients and fonts, so it may be safer to keep the copyright tags there. There is also the issue of accessibility: the threshold of originality differs from country to country, and keeping the copyright tags there simplifies things for people who need to use the image in a country with a lower threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
All right then, thanks. I'll leave it at that. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 15:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Grammar
Should the warnings say "you may be blocked from editing" or "you will be blocked from editing"? George8211what did I break now? 20:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. This is not a matter of grammar at all. Both are grammatically correct. Your question goes above the layer of syntax, semantics and pragmatics all the way up to discourse analysis layer. But even then, IMHO, threatening, which is illegal all over the world, is ill-advised.
I agree with everything you said, right up to the part where you suggest that threatening to block someone from a privately run website could possibly be a legal issue, which is ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I did not say "legal issue". I said "ill-advised". If adhering to the minimum of law was the goal, these templates would have never been created. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You said, "which is illegal all over the world". Legoktm (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, it should say "you may be blocked from editing", because nobody can guarantee that a block will take place. There are all sorts of reasons why blocks don't happen when they could, such as nobody notices the error in question; somebody does, but does not report it to administrators; somebody does that, but, for any one of a myriad of reasons, a reviewing administrator declines to act. (And of course Codename Lisa is quite right: this is nothing whatever to do with grammar.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I concur with may in both meanings: in terms of permission-to-block per policy, and probability-of-blocking by process&people. --Lexein (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I also concur with the use of may and not will. This is a question of correct semantics and not one of grammar. Unless reached by community consensus such as at WP:ANI or Arbcom, blocking is entirely at the discretion of admins and many may well consider that a block might not be necessary even in repeated instances of abuse. It depends very much on the circumstances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
uw-coi additional text
The documentation for this template reads: "{{subst:Uw-coi|Article|Additional text}} adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thank you" ". But the template doesn't actually do that; what it does is add the additional text after "Thank you", and italicises it. As far as the thank you is concerned, it'd probably be good if the documentation and the actual functioning were in agreement; but what are the italics for? Could this be modified to add the additional message in plain text? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I've checked through {{uw-coi}} and it looks fine. I also added {{subst:uw-coi|Foo|You have been informed about this before}} to User talk:Sandbox for user warnings, and that also looks fine. Where have you seen a problem occur? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replying, Redrose64. I'm sorry that I somehow failed to notice that you had done so. The edit that caused me to post this was this one. I hope that the problem ("Thank you" is not removed; the comment is in italics) is clear from that diff; if not, I'll try to provide more that reproduce the result. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: OK, thanks; notice the position of the HTML comment <!-- Template:uw-coi --> in your diff - it's after the category and before the italicised text. Now consider the two tests in this edit and notice the position of the words "Additional text". In the first test, {{subst:uw-coi|Article|Additional text}} it takes the place of the worrds "Thank you.", but in the second, {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}Additional text it's just after the HTML comment <!-- Template:uw-coi --> - just as it is in your diff linked above. I can only conclude that the italicised text was also placed outside the {{subst:uw-coi}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking the trouble to reply. Your examples do not replicate the problem I have, but I don't know why not. The only explanation I can think of is that I use Twinkle to place such notices. Could this be a Twinkle problem? I tried {{uw-coi}}-warning myself, and the Twinkle preview clearly shows that (a) "Thank you." is not removed and (b) the additional text (mine was "blah blah blah") is italicised. So I tried it on the uw-sandbox. Please see this diff. Does that help? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Your latest diff does have the italicised text after the HTML comment <!-- Template:uw-coi --> so it wasn't placed in the "Additional text" parameter of a {{subst:uw-coi|Article|Additional text}}. I don't use Twinkle myself: in fact I don't use any automated tools, preferring to make my own mistakes. But if you're certain that you didn't consciously add the italics, then they must be coming from Twinkle, so I suggest that you put a message on WT:TW pointing them to this thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's the conclusion I was coming to also. Many thanks for your input. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Level 1 warning for edits reverted by another user
I saw some certain level 3 templates have ambox icon, and some ones have the Nuvola Apps icon, Can we explain why we have 2 different warning icons on level 3 templates
Ambox Icon on a level 3 template:
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.
and the nuvola apps icon on :
Please stop. If you continue to harm Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
Hi. I hadn't noticed before. I guess nobody else did. Maybe that's the whole reason: Similarity. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Possible template for IP which should be blocked, but there is little point
I'm looking for a template which says the following (but, hopefully, better expressed)
This IP has been used recently by a blocked editor. However, he's stopped using it (and gone on to another IP), so there is no point in blocking.
The blocked editor in question has never been associated with an editor login, so the sock puppet templates don't seem quite appropriate.
It may not be true that there is no point in blocking. I recall one which has had 6 (2-12 hour) uses by the same person (per WP:DUCK), and none by anyone else. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
That would work if there were an editor name to be associated with. However, I suppose {{IPsock}} could be edited to have the option of reporting a description rather than a name. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 04:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Template backbone
Please see {{uw}} and Template:Uw-editsummary/sandbox, you can test this with your talk page by substituting. I think this backbone template is ready to simplify markup on every user notice template, it includes auto thanks and sign text and auto icon options. IMO we can use this template by default in such templates. Please comment! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand yet what you are proposing or how to use it or why... Can you elaborate on those? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 05:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll bite. Why does the markup need to be simplified? What exactly is this supposed to simplify and why complicate something that isn't broken? Can this be used with all of the user warning design guidelines for each different level of user warning template? - Aoidh (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Passive Tweaks on Level 1 warnings, what happened to the "I reverted"
I stumbled into Uw-test1 and some level1 warning templates that were redesigned in July/August 2012, How come they now have passive voice now. It would be better to just simply stick to the "I wanted to let you know I undid your edit because it could be bad" and not "Your edit was reverted because it was seen as bad". Dreth 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. That's because not always the issuer of the message is the reverter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
New question, The majority of the people who warn are reverters themselves. And if passive voice is needed, we could always use uw-test2 for good faith. Dreth 01:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Right. Longstanding consensus is to use the active voice in the level 1 templates. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Guys, templates must be usable for all, not the majority. If the longstanding consensus has no reason backing it, so change it. But again, if there not enough people sending notices for the reverts of others and there is a reason behind using the active voice, who am I to mind?
Or maybe we can rewire the active voice level 1 warnings to include the passive voice, but still have the active voice kept as well, or maybe create the level1a templates for passive voice users.Dreth 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There's no "longstanding consensus" to use the active voice, even the RfC that initiated the change to the "I reverted it" wording (which was a few months ago, hardly longstanding) noted that the consensus was that these templates needed to be worked on further, so I don't see that there was ever much of a consensus other than a very few editors insisting that they thought it was better. - Aoidh (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Now. should we 'BOLDly change the level 1 back templates to active voice? Or require census? Dreth 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys. Just want to point out there is also {{uw-vandalism0}} if you need passive voice. As Dreth said above, the majority of reverters are also doing the warning themselves. Since comparative testing showed that using the active voice was better at retaining good faith people who'd made mistakes and driving away real vandals, I'd recommend we stick with the consensus from the previous 30 day RFC and have all the level 1 templates be active voice. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 03:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There was no such consensus for the active voice, as specifically noted by the closing admin's comments in the RfC. I get that pushing the active voice on the templates was your pet project, but don't continue to cite a consensus that wasn't there to justify a change rather than actually discussing the topic at hand. - Aoidh (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The active voice was one of the major changes, if not the major change. The closure was clearly that we should go with those versions and keep tweaking them. We have, as well as creating uw-vandalism0, but completely changing back from active to passive voice when all the objective evidence we have says that it doesn't work as well and isn't needed in the majority of cases makes no sense. By changing to passive voice we're designing the templates for an exception rather than the norm. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to the fact that any time anyone suggests a tweak of any kind, you try to stonewall any discussion by citing a consensus that doesn't support your claims. - Aoidh (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history of the most common level one templates, you'll see many edits since we implemented the RFC. Most of these are, in fact, small tweaks or technical changes. I'm only objecting to reverting back to the passive voice that was a main component of older versions. We spent six months carefully testing those core changes. We didn't change them on a whim or based solely on personal preference, and in the many iterations we tried, active voice was consistently more successful. Also: passive voice is terrible grammar. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 07:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Make template to require the article by default
Since notice without target article means I'm
Talk page stalker we should make template to require the {{{article}}} by default. This can be done with {{error|Please specify a reference article}} which gives Please specify a reference article . --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean on templates like {{subst:uw-editsummary}}? There are cases where a user has edited several different pages without leaving an edit summary on any of them. If it's a general problem, it's better to leave the page name unspecified, since naming a particular one might convey the impression that only the edit to that one page lacked an edit summary, and that all the others were OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I posted this idea because I submited this without this parameter and this happened (clink this link and see talk). --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
No, the link that you have given is not your edit - it is an edit made by Lexein (talk·contribs), and consisted of a {{subst:unsigned|Rezonansowy|12:23, 4 January 2014}} followed by a {{tps}} and some text. The {{tps}} produces (talk page stalker) - I often use it myself, to denote that I'm replying to a question on a user talk page, even though I'm not the person to whom the question was directed. Your edit was this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Have you read his comment, that's why I propose to require this by default, can be filled with one or multiple articles. I personally agree with his comment. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with this proposal, for the reason which Redrose64 explained in his earlier reply. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, it can be filled with one or multiple articles and leaving it blank means:
(talk page stalker) Hey Rezonansowy, please link to specific diffs which illustrate specific problems. I agree that edit summaries should always be added, and that they should be concisely explanatory. Further, Preferences has an option to automatically encourage edit summary addition. Finally, any editor who hopes to become an administrator should have a consistent history of good WP:edit summaries, wikilinking applicable policy#sections where helpful. --Lexein (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The text that you have just copypasted inside a {{tq}} didn't come from any templates. It was hand-entered by Lexein (talk·contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. What you mean exactly? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be asking about the text (talk page stalker) Hey Rezonansowy, please link to specific diffs ... in connection with {{subst:uw-editsummary}}. I'm saying that the two are entirely separate. If you want to know why Lexein (talk·contribs) used that specific text, I can't answer that, and nor is it a question for this page. You should be asking Lexein directly. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@Lexein: could comment what do you think about this idea? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Rezonansowy, {{tps}} means I'm the WP:Talk page stalker, not you. I was watching the page, saw your comment, and suggested that you add diffs (or link to the article) to illustrate the problem you're describing. In your original request, you didn't link or explain (or offer an example of) what a helpful edit summary might have been for that particular edit. I see that you later provided a link to the article which concerned you; that's very helpful.
If you're suggesting that warning template code should display a red-text error message if an article link or diff isn't supplied, I disagree with that. This will break existing templates where used. Existing warning templates which have been on user Talk pages for weeks or years (but not {{subst}}ed) would now surprisingly and suddenly show error text in red, where there was none before.
If you're suggesting that template doc language should more strongly encourage links for warnings, I agree (where warnings refer to single edits or a small number of edits).
If you're suggesting that WP:Twinkle require a link before saving a manually created warning template, I'd only support changing Twinkle's Warn language from "Article link?" to "Article link(suggested)?". For now.
--Lexein (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (numbered & updated to clarify --16:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC))
As has already been pointed out, there are times when a message such as this refers to a number of edits, not to a specific edit, and there is absolutely no reason whatever why editors shouldn't use messages in this generic way, whether they are using Twinkle or not. It is not at all clear to me what would be the advantage of adding "(suggested)" to Twinkle's message would be, but in any case this is not the place to discuss proposals to change the working of Twinkle. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Where the template is intended to refer to all recent edits, I agree with you about links not being needed. That's not necessarily the only case being discussed here. When referring to a few or some edits, the template would, IMHO, still benefit from the addition of one or more links to example problem article(s) or edit(s).
WP:TIGERS. I prefaced my statements with "if". If Res meant #3, then we move discussion to Twinkle discussion area. I promise. Is that okay with you? --Lexein (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It would benefit, but it's certainly not required, not to the point where requiring it is at all beneficial. If there's any confusion they're more than welcome to ask and clarify; a discussion is never a bad thing. - Aoidh (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thoughts on template's style and some of its wording
I am not one to "tinker" with standardized template messages such template:uw-dab, but I am looking it over and am noticing a few things:
1.) it has a LOT of bold and italicised text, some it alsoblue-linked, which makes it read like someone is a little histrionic. Perhaps this template could be toned down a little to look less like it is shouting?
2.) the policy of including at least one any yet only one blue-link per DAB entry is lost in the wording here. I can see it, it's there, technically, but the way it is written it gets completely run over. I'd like to propose a small change to make this policy a wee bit clearer. The second item on the warning list and its sub-item might be better phrased thus:
Be sure to use one and only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
Do not add a non-navigable link ("red link") unless that term is used in an article"
It isn't much, but I think these small changes would make the template easier to understand and less confrontational while remaining assertive. Perhaps I can just make such changes myself (?) but I would rather get input from the community first. Anyone have any thoughts on these things? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
This change looks pretty good. I think when half the template is in boldface like it was it takes away from the point of doing it at all, like writing a comment in all caps, people are less likely to pay attention to it. - Aoidh (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was thinking, Aoidh. If the volume goes up, people just become deaf. I turned the volume down a bit without turning it off altogether. Thanks for supporting my move on that front. KDS4444Talk 14:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, that is not the way it struck me at all. I saw the use of bold text as helping to mark out the particular points which were most in need of taking notice of, making it easier to see the essential points. I don't see it at all as having a similar "shouting" effect as writing a comment all in capitals. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Watson. I think some things do need the emphasis. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
When half the template has emphasis, there's no benefit in that, why have emphasis at all? There is a difference between "some things" and "almost all of it". Having half of your comment in bold isn't much better than having it in ALL CAPS...it's distracting from the actual message, at best. - Aoidh (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you provide a before and after version right here, demonstrating what you're proposing? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, seeing as how a before and after are both already found in the discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about links to different versions, but actually physically placing them here so we can look at them and compare them. That would make your point much easier to understand and deal with. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Slow edit warring
Proposed addition:
Note that slow edit warring (not violating 3rr, but repeatedly returning to make the same disputed edit over longer time) is just as much a violation as doing it all at once. Discuss the matter on the talk page, rather than attempting to force your version.
What think ye? Any tweaking to improve it would be appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd like more input before installing this wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I feel like the 3rr template should specifically focus on 3rr, and that uw-ew is for non-3rr edit-warring which would include edit warring over a longer period of time. Maybe on Template:Uw-ew add something to the end of "editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts" to note this. - Aoidh (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually you bring up a good point, which also highlights a problem: why have both templates? uw-ew mentions "three reverts" without mentioning what it is or its background. That's very poor writing, just as using a pronoun for a specific person before (or without) ever mentioning that person by name is wrong. I don't see any reason why we can't combine them and end up with only one template. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Because the 3rr template focuses on 3rr, the uw-ew template focuses on just edit-warring, not 3rr but others (such as "slow edit warring"). It doesn't make sense to template someone telling them not to make more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period when what they've been doing is slowly edit warring over a period of days or more, because then they're just likely to dismiss the template as inaccurate and continue to edit war. I do think the uw-ew template might do with some cleaning up, but I don't think combining them is beneficial. - Aoidh (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This template contains "A username should not be ... related to a "real-world" group or organization..." Could someone please link me to the section of policy that supports this assertion? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:ISU is presumably the place that says what's allowed & what isn't. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Uw-ublock is wrong. A name can be related to a real-world organization. User:John at Example Corp is okay, as is User:Microsoft's Biggest Fan. However, there are restrictions. Both User:Microsoft and User:Microsoft Marketing Department are unacceptable.
But the question of what to do remains: Can that nuance can be explained briefly? (Maybe no?) In practice, is it worth fixing? (Probably yes?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
How about A username should not be ... easily confused as being a real-world group or organization, or being endorsed or represent them.? —EncMstr (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What does this template do??
The first thing you want to read when entering a template page is what the template does. This template page fails in quickly telling the user what the template does or what function it has. The page should begin with something like "This template is used to ...", or "Making the text included in the template ...". —Kri (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Lots of templates share this talk page. Which template are you referring to? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I see you got here before me. :) I was just gonna write I had noticed that this talk page was not specific to the template I was talking about. Funny, since I was at the template page when I clicked the talk page tab, I thought that would take you to the talk page of the Wikipedia page you were on? Anyway, the template I was talking about was Template:Uw-italicize. —Kri (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The WP page explaining the overall purpose of user warning templates, which include {{uw-italicize}}, is here. It Is Me Heret / c 11:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Uw-editsummary
Some editors are leaving edit summaries like "I made some changes", "I corrected some errors", etc.; these are no more helpful than no summary at all. Earlier today I was bold and added "Avoid vagueness" to Help: Edit summaries (see this diff). If that change to H:ES survives, I propose a corresponding addition to the Uw-editsummary template, suggesting that an edit summary needs to actually inform other editors as to what changes were made. Thank you for your consideration. Jeh (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@Holdek: Hey Holdek. We purposely leave that functionality out of this and related templates where the reverted edit is often defamatory and so we want to minimize its view. Please see this discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. But, how about making it closer to level 1 than level 4? This could help in situations where the page was made in good faith. Holdek (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You mean you want this template to be much more timid? I think we need to be quite firm in this area and the template is currently that, but also polite. Anyway, let's not talk in the hypothetical. Is there some specific language change you have in mind?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Removing a coi template
Hi. I was tagged in December of 2012 with a coi template for some reason. It bothers me that it is on my talk page. I have not talked to the person who placed it but I looked at his talk page and have the impression he is zealous about tagging people and removing external links. Can I delete the tag from my talk page? Thanks. Jim Derby (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. You can remove anything you want from your user talk page (though it's recommended that you archive it rather than just remove it), with the exception of notices regarding active sanctions (mainly blocks). Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Inaccessible signature notice?
I've been finding myself coming across more and more users with sigs that pretty clearly fail WP:CONTRAST, sometimes to the point that even I can't read them despite having no color vision problems. Would there be interest in a single issue notice template, particularly since WP:SIGAPP is now policy, to inform users that they may want to reconsider their current signatures? I get the feeling this isn't the "request a template" department, but I'm not sure where else to go, nor what standards I'd need to conform to in order to create one myself. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the place to discuss the need for a template, also to suggest the wording and layout. Design considerations are at WP:UWDG but are also discussed here. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case I think a template with this rough wording would be a good idea:
Hello [user]. I wanted to let you know that your signature may be difficult to read for other users, especially those with vision problems. Specifically, colors used in signatures should not be too similar to the background color, per WP:SIGAPP. You may find that WP:CONTRAST provides some guidance as to how to pick more accessible colors for signatures. Thank you! (signature)
Any thoughts on that? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Could the message be made more generic, to apply to signatures that are hard to read in ways other than low contrast? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I was actually thinking a parameter could select the reason for why the sig is problematic, or from a list of reasons. Like color=1 gives a blurb about color contrast, symbol=1 gives a blurb about using non-ASCII or symbol characters excessively or in a confusing manner (e.g., substituting § for "s", or most leet substitutions), diffname=1 gives a blurb about having a sig that's drastically different from your username, size=1 gives a blurb about font size or similar. My main concern is that the low contrast issue is kind of a niche one that many users might not be able to figure out just by saying "your sig is hard to read, please follow policy" without giving as specific a reason as possible. Since I'd like to see this work as a notice rather than a warning, I think it should provide concrete advice on how to adequately fix the issue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The section "Be cautious about deletion discussions" in {{uw-coi}} bothers me. It seems to violate WP:AGF by accuse the recipient of the message of behavior they have likely never behaved in, since most COI editors engage in article creation or edit the articles directly related to their conflict. It also seems to violate WP:BEANS.
I recommend removing this text from the template; we could add another more specialized template if it is needed for this specific behavior. If I don't see a response here, I'll go ahead and make the change. Vectro (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem with using multiple ips is much broader than just vandalism. Even gf editors who ip hop create problems of inadvertent socking and they are often unresponsive to talk messages, having hopped on to a new ip. Users of multiple stable ips are a bit easier to work with, but still problematic. The wording should not assume vandalism to be the problem. LeadSongDogcome howl! 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
"This is your last warning", when not really the last warning, makes us appear weak
{{uw4}} and the level-4 user warning templates tend to start with "This is your last warning." But, as User:A. B. points out,[3] some users have gotten multiple "last warnings" not yet followed by any block.
Threatening "this is your last warning", without actually following through, makes us sound weak and makes all our threats sound empty.
Therefore, I propose that we should change the phrase "This is your last warning." to something equally threatening but which is less binding upon us. I suggest replacing the whole phrase with a simple "Beware."
I agree. I wish there were some kind of trigger in the level-3 warning that alerted interested admins, who could then issue the level-4 warning, and then follow thru with a block. If that isn't going to happen, then the wording should be changed. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Worse than no warning at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It might be better just to remove the "this is your last warning" entirely without replacing it. Template:uw-vand4 for example would then just say "The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." short and simple and accurate. In this case I think less is more. - Aoidh (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Good wording. Give it a try. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well the problem is that the wording at Template:uw-vand4 seems to be transcluded from Template:uw4, which is full-protected (and I don't have the template editor user permission) - Aoidh (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It looks like an improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, though it is very similar to the level 3 template.--Mojo Hand(talk) 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Aoidh's version is a great improvement over the original "This is your last warning." But I still prefer the idea of adding "Beware." I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because "Beware" makes the warning sound more threatening. —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I can definitely see the issue, but at the same time, "Last warning" sends a stronger message then just that you may be blocked if you continue. Part of the problem is that there are some editors who are a bit trigger happy with level 4 warnings. Anecdotally it does seem that the last warning messages are actually more effective in stopping vandalism, although I can't provide stats on it. Even if the person issuing the warning isn't in a position to make good on it, we should consider further whether we really want to weaken the message. Monty845 23:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
How about "This is it" or "You are now on notice" or "Your edits are now being monitored"? —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Better to avoid "Your edits are now being monitored", or anything that similarly evokes an exciting game of cat and mouse between the internet cops and the crafty vandal. Better to keep things as boring as possible, never alluding to Wikipedians. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Or possibly rewording it to say "You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia"? That way it brings the important part to the beginning, but it keeps it as factually accurate as possible, in the event that someone else is a little to eager with the templates. However, looking at that I agree it takes away from it a bit to remove the "This is your last warning" bit. Is there a way to keep that emphasis without actually saying "last warning"? Words like "beware" and "now on notice" don't do it, I think. - Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I like this wording, but I agree that it does somewhat lack the threat of "last warning". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Little problem here. I sometimes block just after a 'last warning' - if someone's busy vandalising I'm not going to wait around waiting for the next one. But it looks a bit odd to block someone when they haven't edited after the last warning. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Even with the current wording though that's an issue. The current wording does seem problematic in some ways but better in others, and given how often Template:uw4 is used I think it should be discussed thoroughly before being changed. Should we open an RfC and try to figure out a better wording? - Aoidh (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
How about this: Don't leave a uw4 without reporting the user to ANV. Jeh (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't really seem to solve anything, as it doesn't prevent others from giving additional "last warnings". - Aoidh (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't "prevent", no, but if the convention was that a uw4 means an ANV report it might reduce the number of duplicate "lasts". Jeh (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Given the fact of open editing, IPs will often have multiple level 4 warnings on the talk pages for infractions committed by different people. As such, "You may be blocked from editing without further warning" seems to be the best wording to me. I don't like making threats I know may not be backed up, and even an ANV is no guarantee a block will be issued. - BilCat (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
BilCat: I'm very much a new contributor here, but fwiw, I like that phraseology a great deal. An independent question: Is there a way that the template can automatically suggest, to the editor who leaves a uw4, that they make an ANV report? I'm sure TW could do so (I imagine that TW could have an option to actually create the ANV report) but of course not all uw4's are left with the aid of TW. Jeh (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just copied User:Aoidh's wording from above, just to be clear what wording I was supporting. :) As to suggesting that the editor who leaves a uw4, that they make an ANV report, I rarely ever file such reports. I've found it's next to useless to do so, and several uw4 warnings are usually sufficient to bring it to an admin's attention. If a bot could automatically file an ANV report on behalf of a user who added a uw4, that might be useful, but it may problematic for other reasons. - BilCat (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
So is there any objection to making this change, to make the template say "You may be blocked from editing without further warning"? - Aoidh (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
"...without further notice" would be a more conventional English phrasing, but either way, I support the proposed change. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 23:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I actually like "without further notice" a lot better, it sounds more natural. - Aoidh (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we should keep "warning", as that's more threatening, and in keeping with the seriousness of a level 4 warning. As noted above, the point is to send a strong message to the user. - BilCat (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, is there an administrator or template editor that can change the wording to "You may be blocked from editing without further warning"? - Aoidh (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: Sorry, it's Template:uw4, removing the "This is your last warning..." bit and replacing all of it with the above wording. - Aoidh (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I have created a level one warning template, {{Uw-sigdesign1}}, which reads:
Hello, I'm [Username]. I wanted to let you know that your signature ("sig") design might cause problems for some readers. This is because of low colour contrast, an unreadable font, or suchlike. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising sigs. Thank you.
where "of low colour contrast, an unreadable font, or suchlike" can be replaced by |1= and "Thank you" by |2=.
I invite comment about its content and deployment, including the possibility of using it in twinkle, on its talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 13:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only one who can't see any need for this? FamouslySharp(talk) 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oo. Just noticed that the above sig looks different today. Reason: last time that I looked at it, it was with Firefox 3.6 - now I'm looking with FF 28.0 --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this. I definitely think it should be in Twinkle under the "single issue notices" section (rather than warnings). Couple of points:
Change "suchlike" to "similar" or "a similar issue"; "suchlike" isn't used at all in American English as far as I've ever seen.
I think that WP:CONTRAST should be directly linked to if possible since it provides much more practical advice on fixing a sig than WP:SIGAPP does. But of course it's of limited applicability if contrast isn't the issue.
An example of what a color contrast issue is might be helpful (it might not be intuitive to all) but I think that might be worth leaving out in the name of brevity.
Otherwise I think this is pretty good. Thank you again for creating it! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@FT2:
I just noticed that a new version of this template was made and i took the liberty of boldly reverting the changes that where made, mentioning i would explain the reason for doing so over here. There are a few concerns i have in regards to these changes that were made to the template:
How much is too much? The old version was already a rather long read but the addition of another few paragraphs of text pushes it straight in TL;DR area for me. Aside from the textual additions the added spacing beneath the headers increases the templates length even more. The new version is actually so large that it requires scrolling on a laptop screen see and read it entirely.
The new formatting is distracting: The old version used a few bold headers and one italicized line which is fine. The new version used bold headers, italics, bolded words, red text and bold underlined text throughout the template which makes it difficult to focus on the text or actually read it.
I understand the intent of the change was to make the template easier to understand and read, but i don't think adding more explanation to the template actually accomplished this. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, and thanks for the ping. The changes break down into three paragraphs - other than those it's not much difference in length:
Original
Added
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.
Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username or edits suggest that you are editing for publicity and/or promotional purposes, or on behalf of a company or other organization. For example:
Promotional editing - your username may suggest that you intend to edit on behalf of a company, group, website or organization, or for purposes of promotion and/or publicity; or
Inappropriate username - your username may not comply with our username policy: an account and its username must be the edits of one individual person, and you may not edit with a username that is inappropriate, or suggests that multiple people or a whole organization will use (or share) it.
Wikipedia is not a means of promotion and your account mustn't be shared with other people. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, or your edits are not intended as promotional, you may be allowed to edit, but you will have to change your username first, and comply with our key editing policies.
I want to make a correction or improvement, or fix something, or there's a problem in an article
We will always take seriously, reader reports about possible unlawful content, defamation, minors at risk, copyright violation (and permission to use copyrighted media on Wikipedia), article corrections, and privacy breach. If these are all you need, you can contact a suitable volunteer team here, or for emergency removal of privacy, defamation or copyright violating content see here.
If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, or you believe your editing will improve our articles, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it and that your edits will make a real improvement in some area of coverage, or fix some real problem (however minor), and are not just promotional. If the reason is genuine and sincere, or the block was due to a genuine misunderstanding of our requirements, you may be allowed another chance. You will also need to rename your account to meet our username policy. We will only consider requests to change an article if the changes meet our site policies. As a simple guide, requests of a promotional nature are almost always refused, but genuine errors, omissions, unbalanced and non-neutral coverage, outdated facts, substandard coverage of a living person, genuine intent to edit appropriately, and genuine improvements to our pages and content – even if minor – may sometimes be accepted if other editors agree with you:
The first addition ensures we clearly state up-front, the actual reasons for blocking. While "promotion" seems a "reason" for Wikipedians, it actually isn't clear what the jargon word means, to good-faith newcomers. It doesn't give well defined reasons or a sense of what triggered it ("appears to be promotional" is clear to us, but often users see this as improving/correcting, not promoting, so they may feel bitten and upset). Stating exact behaviors and not Wikipedia-universe jargon helps newcomers understand quicker, more clearly and feel better that there is a reason for it. We already expand on these later, so it's better to group all explanations of "what you may have done wrong" into the 1st section where a user immediately looks for the key points, and it also simplifies the rest.
The second addition is because there's a key omission here. Sometimes users are genuinely but cluelessly trying to fix a real problem. Blocked users may be trying to correct what they see as an error, or a defaming comment, in their business' article or about themselves. For example they get told by someone that an attacker has written something, or see a law case or tabloid comment has gained undue WEIGHT so they create an account to try and "put it right", then get blocked. The original just says very negatively "you are blocked and probably can't edit". It doesn't help good faith clueless newcomers, . Blocked users with a concern can then feel forced by our block, to try and fix it other ways, such as creating new accounts, gaining a sock ban and further problems, etc - we don't need any of that. It's important to be clear that even if blocked, any concern about defamation, copyvio, or other significant matter, can be passed to us regardless. ("Q: Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?" - A: Probably not.)
The third edit is probably too long, but reflects that a user really does need to know what to do, and may not know Wikipedia at all. Someone reading "What can I do now?" is also prepared to read a little more, and needs the basics beyond "fill this in and explain that" - they need a sense what's accepted, what isn't. The wording states only that they need to "convince an administrator" (sounds daunting, doesn't it) that they "mean it" (what exactly?), with no sense of AGF if there's been a good faith error. A clearer dividing line really helps users who don't know Wikipedia: - "if you believe your changes will really fix a problem, or improve coverage of other topics, and you seem sincere in understanding what went wrong, or there's a genuine misunderstanding, then you might get another chance, but if you just want to add promotional material (as described above) then you probably won't". That kind of summary is so useful to a blocked user. But the template doesn't really say it.
Experience with blocked COI users at OTRS makes me think that they generally prefer to understand what's up, even if it is longer, provided it is clearly explained, over a short notice that leaves confusion and stress. The context is the blocked user who is shocked or upset, but still wants to meet their (perhaps legitimate) needs, not the Wikipedian who knows all about WP:NOT and WP:COI. For blocked COI newcomers, often a good cogent AGF explanation saves immense upset, ill-will, recourses to legal/OTRS, socking they never intended to misuse but didn't know better, etc. When it's pure promotion, we say "no", but where it's good faith and there might be good faith but clueless newcomer conduct, we need to do better.
I accept it's got too long. I'd be open to condensing the above via discussion. But for a user facing this block, I feel strongly that some effort is needed to address these issues, since users blocked with this template may sometimes have good intentions or genuine reason to try and edit, and deserve a notice that makes clearer these points so they understand our concerns better. FT2(Talk | email) 12:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@FT2: I am probably not the person to talk to for suggestions in regards to writing brilliant template prose, but here are my thoughts on the above and the template:
I have always deemed the first two sections of the template (The short introduction and the "Why can't I edit Wikipedia?") the best parts of the current template. The intro immediately conveys the core message ("You have been blocked") alongside a one line explanation why ("Using Wikipedia for publicity and/or promotional purposes"). The section section subsequently elaborates on the "Promotional editing" part by providing multiple links to examples of "Promotional behavior".
The new template text for this section seems to suggest that the reason for the block is an OR scenario (Promotional editing OR Spam editing OR Inappropriate username). However, {{Uw-spamublock}} should only be used in cases where the user has an unacceptable username AND uses the account for advertising. If an editor is advertising / spamming utilizing a non problematic username {{Uw-soablock}} or {{Uw-adblock}} should be used. If an editor has an inappropriate username but seems to be editing in good faith {{Uw-softerblock}} should be used. Due to this the "For Example" part of the template is somewhat odd. The "Promotional editing" and "Inappropriate username" part both seem to describe username related issues, yet the OR statement after "Promotional editing" seems to suggest that a block may be handed out for having a conflict of interest. While we strongly discourage COI editing it is not a grounds for an immediate block.
The addition of the "I want to make a correction or improvement, or fix something, or there's a problem in an article" is something i agree with. However, i would suggest merging that in the current "Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?". As mentioned i am not a hero with template prose but it might be an idea to intertwine this with the "neutral point of view" mention in this section (Eg, something like 'Wikipedia maintains a strict policy that article's should be written in neutral and unbiased point of view. If you believe your edits were neutral and unbiased, or believe you were fixing an issues related to the article's neutrality... (etc etc etc) )
As for the last section: Consider the line "If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, or you believe your editing will improve our articles, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it and that your edits will make a real improvement in some area of coverage, or fix some real problem (however minor), and are not just promotional.". I know the line is intended to be friendly but it ends up being flowery instead. Just try reading the entire line out loud in one go - i think you will notice what i mean . Aside from the length part of it is also somewhat superfluous: If i misunderstood the requirements, wouldn't my unblock rationale be inherently genuine and sincere? And isn't fixing a real problem a real improvement as well? If i were to rephrase it i would probably state something along the lines of: "If your future are beneficial to Wikipedia as opposed to being promotional your account may be unblocked upon request".
My second concern is that the text feels somewhat incoherent. We start off explaining the editor needs to convince an administrator they had no bad intent and need to improve. The next line is a one liner stating the need to change a username. Afterwards we suddenly jumps to a line claiming that we will only consider (article) change requests in accordance to the site policies (What article change? Weren't we talking about an an unblock and a username issue?). After that there is another long explanation what edits will and won't be accepted, adding a statement that they may be accepted if other editors agree (What other editors? Who are they?). After we read that there is suddenly a step by step guide telling the editor exactly what to do - but by doing so it overlaps with the section above it.
I happily agree the template could use a friendliness pass and some fleshing out in area's that lack explanation but it really shouldn't grow much larger or be extended beyond some clarification. I've always considered a block template a means to tell an editor they are blocked, why they are blocked and what they can do. Any extended explanations regarding policies can - in my humble opinion - better be linked from the block template instead. As examples i would mention the Business FAQ and the Guide to appealing blocks both contain a lot of useful information for blocked editors and by linking them we provide that information without derailing the unblock template into an "Introduction to Wikipedia". Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Apologies if anything is blunt, unclear or grammatically incorrect. I lacked the time to proofread the above once done.
Template:Uw-1rrMac
The template: {{Uw-1rrMac}} seems to have the tildes to generate the signature within it, however when using it just now, my signature did not generate.[4][5] -- [[axg//✉ ]] 22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't subst: cleanly; in particular, it leaves the {{uw}} template as a transclusion, instead of propagating the subst: to that as well. This means that Template:4~ (which generates the tildes) is not seen as {{subst:4~}} but as {{4~}} resulting in a further non-substituted transclusion, and so the tildes are not actually present to be expanded. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It means the template has been deprecated and redirected. Bellerophontalk to me 13:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Misleading documentation
The documentation for {{subst:Uw-soablock}} suggests that |anon= and |time= are valid parameters - in fact they are ignored. Redrose64 (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone know why the template ignores the time and anon parameters? Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Anyone? Bueller? Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Parsecboy:: There are a few "Why's" that have different answers here.
Why are the parameters ignored: If you look at, for example, {{Uw-vblock}} source you will notice it accepts "Time" and "Anon" as parameters in its definition. {{Uw-soablock}} on the other hand doesn't have there parameters defined.
Why does the documentation say they are valid: A lot of templates use one single documentation template - {{uw-block/doc}} to be precise. This template bases the displayed message on the block template's page name. There is not specific entry for {{Uw-soablock}} though, which causes it to display the default messages (Which includes the time and anon parameter.
Why aren't there parameters actually in the template No idea on that account. The template was last edited in 2012, and most edits were made around 2010. Perhaps no-one decided to update it?
I guess it should be relatively simple to fix though, if we wanted to do that. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. There is Template:Uw-adblock, but as far as I know there isn't a temporary block notice for spammers (I came here by way of an IP that was spamming that I blocked, btw). I'm not a knowledgeable about coding - if it's not a difficult fix, are there any downsides I'm not aware of? Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Changes to level 1 warnings?
I think it's important to emphasize in level one warnings that reverted content isn't actually deleted, it's simply currently not visible, and that it's possible to put back the text- in particular, change uw-unsourced1 to read "Hello, I'm Jimbo. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! The edits are not lost, they're simply not visible to the public currently and can be easily reinstated. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you." or something like that. Thanks. Just an idea. --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, OK. Since no one has objected in over two weeks, I will be WP:BOLD and do it myself. Thanks, Lixxx235Got a complaint? 15:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Uw-notenglish should allow a language to be specified
{{Uw-notenglish}} should allow a language to be specified in the same way that {{not English}} does. If a language is specified, the output could be something like (for French, as an example):
Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is written in French. We invite you to translate it into English. Pages in foreign languages will not be kept here, and may be deleted if they are not translated into English. If it is intended for readers from the French language community, it should be contributed to the French Wikipedia. See the list of Wikipedias. Thank you.
This would allow an easy way to point editors to the correct wikipedia if there isn't an appropriate non-english welcome template. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 19:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
A query from AfC
An IP has been very insistent about the creation of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/uw-disruptive4im. Because there was no mention of a need for this template we initially declined it. However, they continue to pose it for review so I felt it necessary to ask here if someone would vouch for a need for the template. hewhoamareismyself 18:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. We have the uw-AFDx series of warnings for editors who remove AFD templates from article. We also have one for CFD. But we do not have a series for warning editors when MFD templates are removed. Can we get a series for these?
I think this is an error as neither WP:Template messages/User talk namespace (wp:UTM) or the actual template page show an 'article' parameter. Also it appears to have no effect on the templates wording on the page. --220ofBorg 21:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Update the UW-COI template language to reflect the Terms of Use?
Can the template be updated to reflect the updated Terms of use [6] subsection "Paid contributions without disclosure"?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Show a link to the diff when a page is included?
Hello, template editors!
I would like it if there was a link to the diff next to the page name if it is included, so admins and others can more easily verify what was changed by the warned/blocked user. Also I would also like a direct link to the page history.
Do it like this:
<page name>(diff | hist)
Where the <page name> is a link to the page, diff is a link to the page difference comparator with the old id the admin provided and the edit immediately before. I forgot to mention that if no old id is provided, we could get the edit right before the current one, or we can get the name of the user and show the latest revision made by that user.
Without the diff and hist links, it feels like living in a dead end while taking bad guys down.
If this is not possible via normal template syntax, can you make sure that it still supports substitution? I would also like you to do this on other user warning templates like Uw-vandalism1 or similar templates when it provides a page the user violated the policies in, please?
Thank you. DSCrowned (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, the popup tool may do what you want. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Include a section heading
I would suggest that this template should include a section heading. Many of the other user warning templates automatically add a heading, usually like "July 2014". This should be the case for this template as well. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy: What is "this template"? This talk page is shared by several hundred templates, so we have no idea which one you are thinking of.
Anyway, I've never noticed a date heading being added automatically by one of the uw- series of templates; please give examples of some that do include a heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Aww man, one of these template talk page? Well, I was thinking {{Uw-spamublock}} but it could apply to any of them. I've seen several templated messages that always have a heading of "February 2013" or whenever it was posted, but I'm not sure if those were user warnings or not. I think it would be a good idea for all of these templates to have that heading - otherwise the user talk pages don't flow well like [7] (I have since added the missing headings) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
{{subst:uw-spamublock}} is one of a group of templates that inform a user that they have been blocked. Blocks usually happen after at least one warning - sometimes as many as four, so the block notice should go in the same section as the warnings that led up to the block; therefore, {{subst:uw-spamublock}} shouldn't generate its own heading.
{{subst:uw-username}} is a single-level warning, not part of an escalating sequence; it also doesn't generate a heading; but it would typically follow one of the {{subst:welcome}} templates, some of which do generate headings.
uw-username should not appear under the welcome screen. It's not part of the welcome, but a completely separate topic. Also, the reality is, usually the new page editor nominates a spam page they made for speedy delete, and then after that they look at what user made it and then they notice the improper username. The example I linked to above had the welcome, two speedy delete headings, then the username and username block templates without headings. So, your statement is wrong; it usually does not follow a welcome template, and even if it did, it should still have its own heading. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
My second part of this is a simple question: Is there anything wrong with having a heading? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Spam warnings
Are there spam warnings for spam activities that are not external links? Like when a user keep creating spam articles? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, there's the uw-advert series of user warnings, which can also be used through Twinkle. - Aoidh (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Update
Would it be possible or admirable to update the warning to include the request to retract the legal threat else be blocked? Tutelary (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Where is the relevant guideline?
Where can I find the guideline and/or policy that pertains to giving template warnings? Harmelodix (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Uw4im has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the deprecated usage of "Image:" to "File:". Dustin(talk) 17:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Dustin(talk) 17:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: It's not deprecated; it's a permitted alias. Also, WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
See WP:IMAGE: That quite clearly states that it is deprecated. Dustin(talk) 19:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not shown as deprecated at Wikipedia:Namespace or at Help:Files, which says "the prefix Image: can be used instead of File: in links ... (see WP:namespace#Aliases)". "Deprecated" doesn't mean "you need to eliminate this wherever it is used", it means "you should not add new instances". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: The thing is, this is a template used by {{Uw-vandalism4im}}, and that template is substituted. In not changing this, you may as well be adding a new instance every single time this is substituted. It's not the end of the world to leave it as is, I just was saying what I thought ought to be done. Dustin(talk) 21:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Documentation issues
So, I have issues with the documentation pages for this series. For one thing, it is impossible to edit unless you are an expert template editor. An "edit" link does not appear on the documentation, which makes me wonder if you've fully-protected the documentation page for some reason.
The edit I would make, if I could, would be to the documentation for {{uw-spam}}, to add a see also link to {{uw-advert}}. In fact, both pages should have the text "Use {{uw-spam}} for inappropriate external links. Use {{uw-advert}} for other advertising content". Again, I have no idea how to do this. Should I put an edit-protected on this question? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no regular /doc page for the documentation of {{subst:uw-spam}}. Instead, the documentation is generated by {{Templatesnotice/inner}} via {{Templatesnotice}} and neither of these is protected. However, these doc-generating templates are shared by many of the user warning template series, so making a change that is specific to {{subst:uw-spam}} would probably affect all of the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
So is it possible? Could Templatesnotices be modified to allow the inclusion of a see also template? I doubt that uw-spam and uw-advert are the only ones that need to link to a very similar template. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Uw-coi doc is wrong
I would just fix this but I'm a little out of my element here. The doc for Template:Uw-coi talks about a "Reason" parameter, but if you actually put something in there, it gets used (and linked) as an article title. So I think the doc should say {{subst:Uw-coi|Article}}. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kendall-K1: The template has always used the first positional parameter to link to an article. The documentation used to agree with that, but was changed to "Reason" a few months ago; I've traced the change to this edit by Mlpearc (talk·contribs). I don't know why that was done. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what happened, I was working on uniformity with similar doc pages, anyway I reverted my changes. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mlpearc: You didn't; it's now a worse mess. Some of the documentation now appears twice, inside and outside the green box; and some of that still refers to the "Reason" parameter described above. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
As you can see, in the page history, I reverted my changes, I'm not sure what has caused these errors with the subsequent edits. Still looking for a fix, if anyone has more savvy, please jump in. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
What I see from the page history is that at 19:09, 4 April 2014 you added 12 bytes; then at 19:37, 4 April 2014 you added 2,171. There were then four edits by other people, none of which added content: the total removal was 281+35+12=328 bytes. Then at 20:33, 12 August 2014 you removed 119 bytes. No way was that last edit a revert of the one that added 2,171 bytes. I've reverted to the prior version, which was at least clean. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
(or recently deceased)
What is the point of the parenthetical "(or recently deceased)" note recently added to the warning? Was there a consensus to add this? I believe that the notice is unduly formal, and makes the good-faith warning more like an annoying template. Pinging the adder of the note: Wackyike Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Which warning template are you referring to? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think he's referring to {{uw-biog1}} and {{uw-biog2}}. I'm not a big fan of the change either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is those templates. I didn't realize that this was a combined page. Piguy101 (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd imagine it has something with do with WP:BDP and Robin Williams. If it isn't appropriate to add it into the biog templates, perhaps we can create a template that is specifically for the recently deceased and how BLP is covered. - Aoidh (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Did I do something wrong? Recently deceased people are covered by the BLP policy.Wackyike (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
They are indeed, though adding that might not be relevant for most BLP articles. I've created a test template here to see if maybe we need one specifically for BDP-related articles as it could explain in more detail why recent deaths are still covered under BLP, but if it's not necessary we can delete that and add a mention in uw-biog. But I feel like BDP should be explained in more detail than the uw-biog templates should cover, if Talk:Robin Williams is any indication. - Aoidh (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
To note, I was not referring to Robin Williams, as the addition of (or recently deceased) was added in July 2014: [8], but I suppose the article would be covered with the template. I simply feel as though the addition would apply to very few circumstances, and (quoting myself) "makes the good-faith warning more like an annoying template," so I think it should be removed. Piguy101 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason I added (or recently deceased) to those templates was that BLP violations can happen on recently deceased people articles and there is no other template that would've been appropriate for those instances. I still don't understand what is wrong with those edits I made.Wackyike (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Wackyike: Isn't {{Uw-vandalism}} still appropriate (but less specific) in those cases? π♂101 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Piguy101: No, because the strict BLP policy still covers recently deceased people in some cases. BLP violations are not necessarily vandalism.Wackyike (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Making uw messages look personalized
I edited {{uw-unsourced}} yesterday to remove the icon. Why? It's needless and rather pointless decoration, it makes the message look formal rather than friendly, it looks official rather than personal, and it signals "I dropped an official warning message on you" rather than "I'm leaving you a note, one regular person to another". Research (including, but not limited to, m:Research:The Rise and Decline) shows that reverting new users and leaving an impersonal uw template on their talk pages are reliable methods of driving away good-faith newcomers, and pages like WP:DTTR suggest that they irritate a significant proportion of established editors. That body of research is one of the reasons that we've gone to all that trouble to re-write the text of the messages to be friendly.
So why do we include these unfriendly, impersonal images on uw templates for good-faith errors? The inclusion of icons or images is not mandated by Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Design guidelines. At the uw-1 (info icon) level, they're not useful; we don't need special attention paid to a note about adding sources, and, unlike a uw-3 or uw-4 warning, we really don't need an icon to visually attract attention from the next editor. The worse-case scenario is that two different editors would add identical messages about the need to add sources, or whatever the problem is. (Scripts like Twinkle will still automatically detect them.)
So considering all of this, I suggest that we modify the uw design guidelines to gently discourage the inclusion of these icons for templates that meet both of these requirements:
It's a uw-1 or one-off template, not an advanced warning level.
It's not a template about bad-faith edits.
AFAICT, the two arguments in favor of keeping the icons are these: it's matchy-matchy with the higher level warnings (if any higher levels exist), and ILIKEIT.
What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Support I would support removing the icons from all level-1 templates for good-faith errors. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 17:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I think WhatamIdoing's strongest point is that removing the icon is consistent with the research the WMF conducted on the value of personalized messages in retaining good faith editors. My instinct is that you are probably right. However, it would be great to have some emperical data. I wonder if the WMF would be intersted in testing this theory?--Mojo Hand(talk) 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 4 September 2014
This edit request to Template:Uw-uhblock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Current version: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information)."
Requested version: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information)."
My request is for two semicolons to be changed to commas. That sentence contains a list following the endash, and with those being parts of a list, it does not make grammatical sense to use semicolons there.
Dustin(talk) 22:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Not doneDustin V. S. I agree this phrasing is a bit sloppy, but as the list items already contain items with commas it does not lend to readability to use commas to separate list items (e.g. "threatens, attacks or impersonates another person"). All for a re-work but as this is highly visible lets find a solution here on talk before the bold/revert/discuss cycle on the template. (Please feel free to reactivate the edit request if you have a new suggestion, or if you think I'm just completely off-base here--another patrolling temped/admin will stop by). — xaosfluxTalk 23:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
{{subst:proposed deletion notify...
This is my first time posting to a template talk page so forgive me if I have referenced the template incorrectly. I completed a review of a new page and posted this template on the page creator's talk page as instructed by the template. I was shocked to see how insensitive the text was when it appeared on the talk page of this first-time page creator. This template is a 'biting', full of jargon that is possibly unfamiliar to new, first time editors. I am completely biased against rude warnings that appear NOT to be written in good faith. I edit in the Teahouse and I have listed myself in the Welcome committee and that has colored my perception of this template. Here is how I edited the template message after posting it to the article's talk page:
Proposed deletion of Large Hadron Compiler[edit]
:Hello, Mycroftmiles. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,Large Hadron Compiler, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you don't want the article deleted:
:edit the page
:remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
:save the page
:Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please provide feedback to prevent its deletion. If we don't hear from you, it may be deleted after review by other editors.
:I would be quite happy to help you with this problem and you can leave a note on my talk pageif you have questions. Bfpage |leave a message 6:11 am, Today (UTC−4)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
{{test5}} is antiquated and inconsistent with WP:FRIENDLYBLOCKS, which inform the user how to make an unblock request. {{uw-block}} also allows more customization, options for duration, etc, that would still output a message in accordance with standards outlined by WikiProject User Warnings. Thoughts? — MusikAnimaltalk 17:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Still sounds good to me, I would have done it then but forgot about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This template takes the pagename of the attack page as a parameter, but the pagename doesn't actually display as part of the notice. This is relevant because some users might have created multiple pages and not all of them might be attack pages. (I was recently dealing with an editor who had created several pages worthy of speedy deletion, where some were just non-notable and others were attack pages.)
I realize that in some cases, we might not want to include the pagename in the notice. (For example, we might not want to repeat the name of a page titled Joe Smith Is An Idiot in the notice.) But many attack pages have harmless names, and it would be useful to be able to have the option to include the pagename in the notice since it is already being taken as a parameter anyway. --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Blocked proxy template
I've written a new version of Template:Blocked proxy in my userspace with the intention of making the information a bit clearer for people receiving the message. Would others please have a look and let me know what you think? I'm also thinking that Template:Anonymous proxy could be redirected to Template:Blocked proxy as they seems to be doing the same job. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me, Callanecc. More informative, and again let's the user know how to make an unblock request. — MusikAnimaltalk 01:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's much better. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently substed{{spamublock|indef=yes|sig=yes|notalk=yes}}, per doc, but the resulting text still talked about "... you can add {{unblock-spamun}} to your UTP" etc. Shouldn't it change to something about e-mailing a WMF e-mail address? It Is Me Heret / c 12:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks broken to me. Unless I'm missing something it appears to not even have a switch for the notalk argument. Protonk (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyone who would be willing to fix this? It Is Me Heret / c 13:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:Uw-inline-el
Currently, Template:Uw-inline-el says that external links should only appear in the "External Links" section of the article. Shouldn't it also mention that external links can be used as references and include a link to WP:REFBEGIN? --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 22:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ahecht: When an online URL is given as the source for some text in an article, it is not an external link but a reference. Different rules apply, see WP:EL and WP:CITE. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the distinction, but these templates aren't designed for us regulars. A new user has just been told that they need to back up the content in the main part of the article with external links to reliable sources, and then gets this template telling him never to use external links in the main part of the article (and many times the users will add a reference in the form of an external link). I am suggesting something like the text below:
Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of an article. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. If you are trying to add citations to the article, please see the referencing guide. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
2. Please refrain from making disruptive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
I sincerely hope the above is intended as sarcasm. Diego (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Bite-y template
I'm concerned with the way that warning templates for newcomers backfire and lead to flaming wars, which often end with the new editor blocked or banned in matter of minutes. The revert notice is a particular offender, as it gives more emphasis on threatening with a block than in explaining the proper way for dispute resolution. I've made some bold edits that have been reverted, so let's discuss how to make it less bite-y. Diego (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
First, you drastically changed the template without discussion. This is a very heavily used template and any drastic changes must be discussed to gain consensus. Second, you broke it. Its intro had the information icon followed by Uw-3rr, your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war., "Uw-3rr" at the beginning means something was broken because "Uw-3rr" is not legible text but just the name of the template. So if you want to discuss changing this important template please open an RfC and wait for the input of other editors. And no talkbacks please. I watch this page. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 16:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
We're discussing the template now; if you have something against the content changes I made, we can ask for a third opinion, and escalate gradually as needed. The text Uw-3rr doesn't mean the template is broken; that part is substituted by the title of the page where the template is located, which in this case will be the name of the editor to whom the template is addressed, just like in the {{welcome}} template; in this case you would read it as Dr.K., your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war.. And I think the information icon is much less agressive than the current red stop signal, so it will better achieve the purpose of the template, which is to have the tagged editor behave in a proper way, not angering them. Diego (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The text Uw-3rr doesn't mean the template is broken... No you are wrong. Look at the template now. It doesn't have that at the introduction explicitly, as in your edit. If you will not open an RfC, I will open one but I have to leave soon so it may be some time later. I saw your added comment after the edit conflict and I think that the icon as it stands is ok, because there is also an edit-warring template for newbies which is less bitey. The uw-3rr template is not the first you can use with a newbie. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 16:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The uw-3rr template is not the first you can use with a newbie. Tell that to those users who are doing precisely that...
No you are wrong. Look at the template now. It doesn't have that at the introduction explicitly, as in your edit. Uh, I don't follow you... I'm not sure if you understand how variables work in templates, or simply if I'm unable to get what you want to tell me? The text "Uw-3rr" is not fixed text, and it wouldn't appear at all when the template is used at the talk page of an user, the name of that user would appear instead. In any case, addressing the user by name is just a small detail, we don't have to use it if you don't want it.
Would you agree at least to reverse the order of the paragraphs, so that the first thing that the template says is how to engage in dispute resolution? Diego (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S. By the way, which one is the template that should be used for newcomers that are edit warring? Diego (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've found it. Still, that shouldn't prevent us from making the other templates less bitey; we cannot be sure that editors will use the softer vension when it's the adequate one. Diego (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I would support switching the order of the paragraphs to talk about dispute resolution first. To avoid "Uw-3rr" from showing up when the template is viewed directly, you could use {{safesubst:<noinclude />talkspace detect|user={{safesubst:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}|default='''EXAMPLE'''|other='''EXAMPLE'''}}, --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 17:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Diego Moya: I hadn't seen that you had added {{BASEPAGENAME}} so I thought you broke the syntax of the existing template. You could simply have told me that. In any case, I think that personalising the template is not a good idea. I think it is slightly better to not include any names. Since the idea is not to offend newbies why not make a uw-3RR soft template for newbies instead? I have to leave now, I'll be back later. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 18:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You reverted the changes without looking what they were? I'm trying to make this template newbie friendly, as this is the one being used on newbies. If you could guarantee that this template you propose would be the only one used on new editors, this change would not be needed, by I don't see how you're going to enforce that. Diego (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You reverted the changes without looking what they were? Is this what you understood from what I told you? Does missing the detail that you added the basename template equal that "I didn't look what they were?" This is getting ridiculous. And please WP:AVOIDYOU. Last time I checked this was a wiki. Don't make this personal. Wait for others to offer their opinions and don't personalise this like you've been doing. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 00:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure this won't surprise Diego but I oppose this change. WP:3RR is a bright line for everyone, including new editors and the red hand helps to make it clear that this is something that should be read. Also, we already have a uw-ewsoft template. --NeilNtalk to me 00:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 01:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and there's Template:uw-ew and Template:uw-ewsoft that already exist to address the concerns raised. The text for uw-3rr is appropriate for the scope of the template's purpose. Just as uw-vand4 would be "bitey" in the wrong circumstances, that doesn't mean uw-vand4 needs to be adjusted to be a copy of uw-vand1, as they serve different purposes for different circumstances. Each template has a purpose, using it for the wrong purpose would be an issue with the editor, not with the template. - Aoidh (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with NeilN, Dr.K. and Aoidh. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Aoidh, Dougweller, you're not addressing the points I've raised - primarily that you can't stop editors from using uw-3rr when it's not the right one, even if in an ideal world it would be the recommended behavior. This template is different from uw-vand, as it's a single-issue warning, as opposed to the vandalism ones that have multiple levels. Also, automated tools like TW use uw-3rr by default rather than uw-ewsoft, so it makes sense to ensure that it's at least adequate for anyone even if it's not the best option for all. Diego (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Should Uw-coi template include more explicit mention of policy on paid editing?
WP:COI and the terms of use both require disclosure of paid editing. It seems like this is relevant enough information that it should be included as a bullet point on Template:Uw-coi. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I took a swag at it, [9]. Please feel free to revert if this needs additional discussion. VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"...you can leave me a message on my talk page." Why not on the article talk page?
Many of the warning templates include text along the lines of
If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
Is that really the right thing to say? Especially in warnings that are mostly intended for new editors? Discussions of article content belong on the respective article's talk page, not hidden away on some editor's talk page where other interested editors won't be likely to see it. I believe these templates should be changed accordingly. Jeh (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it is the correct place. Most (95%?) of these notices are given to newbie editors and everyone else knows better. Best not to clutter up the article talk pages with redundant information.
In the few cases where there is a topic genuinely needing discussion, the editor issuing the warning can follow up (after being contacted) by moving the discussion to a suitable venue: the article's talk page, a related wikiproject, WP:AIV, WP:VP, a guideline, or policy page. —EncMstr (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I see the logic. Thank you for the reply. Jeh (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Mlpearc, I tried to improve the template because an important bit of information was missing. My change appeared to be "bitey", and I certainly don't want that. How can this change be made in a better way? I think we still need to be direct, or the message will get lost.
Here is the reversion of my edit. (Keep that link open in a separate window.) Note the GF edit summary. I appreciate that.
My point is to mention something lacking in the template: discussion should replace attempts to force one's edit (by repetition of controversial/disputed editing actions): "...stop repeating any edits which are reverted or disputed by others.... At this phase, you need to discuss, not edit."
Any suggestions? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for improving Wikipedia, I have nothing against what you are trying to do. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
""...stop repeating any edits which are reverted or disputed by others.... At this phase, you need to discuss, not edit." How about, "Please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. The answer at this stage is to discuss not edit-war". Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 00:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I like that. Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently, Template:Uw-talkinarticle links the word "talk page" to Help:Talk page. If a page has been specified, should this link to that page's talk page instead? This would change:
I'm wondering if Template:Uw-autobiography needs a bit of revision. A lot of times I see new users create an article about themselves, totally oblivious to WP:NOTWEBHOST. The current warning mentions not creating an article about themselves, but makes no mention of userpages, where they can write (a little bit) about themselves. If we put some mention of userpages in the message, it could turn a common newbie blunder into an opportunity to retain and educate a new user. Comments/thoughts? --Drm310 (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that this may lead users to use their use page as a social networking page or personal webhost, when the user page is specifically for information about your your Wikimedia-related activities and personal information that impacts your editing (conflicts of interest, languages known, geographic location, topics of interest, etc). While there is an allowance for a very limited disclosure of unrelated personal information, a user that just tried posting their CV as a new Wikipedia page is not likely to exercise proper restraint on a user page. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 19:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
They do need to be cautioned that user pages may still be deleted under WP:CSD#U5. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, trust me, I know how userpages can be abused! My CSD log is full of U5 entries and I've left tons of notices about it, to the point of creating a preformatted message because I needed it so often. Yet, I can't help but wonder how many of those individuals did not have malicious intent, felt dejected and quit, never to return. Some could have redeemed themselves and become positive contributors with further guidance, including the rules about proper userpage usage. --Drm310 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The template Template:Uw-editsummary is not putting a space between sentences when an article name parameter is provided. For example, {{uw-editsummary|Article}} produces "...does not have an edit summary.Please be sure..." (with no space before "Please"). The same thing happens regardless of whether or not additional text is provided, as in {{uw-editsummary|Article|Additional text}}, which produces "... does not have an edit summary.Additional text ..." (with no space before "Additional text"). I just tried to fix it, but my attempt seemed to fail, so I self-reverted it. I also see that someone else appears to have recently tried to fix the same problem, but the problem persists. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: It's a feature of parser functions that leading and trailing spaces are stripped - that is, {{#if: x | y | z }} is exactly the same as {{#if:x|y|z}}. So if you need a trailing space, you either need to hide it with something like <nowiki /> or encode it, as John of Reading did using   --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't use the uw-v shortcut (since I just copy and paste from a notepad I keep open whenever editing), but uw-unsourced is probably the second most common warning template I use (after uw-vandalism), so I could see others benefitting it. Seconded, and thanks to 2602: for the suggestion. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fine. There is an {{uw-upload}} series but it's used far less. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think "Thanks!" should be changed to a simple "Thank-you." Thanks! seems so phony and annoying. It's like walking into a store and some clerk halfway across the store who doesn't know you from Adam gives you a loud, phony and enthusiastic "Hi!'... not because she's actually happy to see you, but because her boss instructed her to greet everyone setting foot in the store with a loud, phony and enthusiastic "Hi!'. I don't want anyone thinking someone at Wikipedia has a dorky boss telling them to append their message with a loud, phony and enthusiastic "Thanks!" A simple and graceful "thank-you" will do. Thanks! – JBarta (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think "Thanks much!" actually would be an even better replacement, honestly. "Thanks" by itself does sound a bit phony. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
"Thanks much" is a regionalism. "Thank you" is more universal. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much is a regionalism? Since when? o_O I'm not saying that it's not, but this is the first that I have heard of this. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
One quick google turned up [10] and [11], and while it probably isn't limited to Indiana and Pennsylvania, it is certainly limited to North America. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 19:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, I do live in North America, but I am not in any of those areas that you mentioned. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As a British person, I had never heard "thanks much" until I saw this thread. As to the matter at hand: the words "thank you" are used in level two templates and this is probably an intentional graduation. However I agree that "thanks" is too informal. It doesn't add any desirable qualities to the message and can come across as patronising or forced. I would make a bold edit to that effect were I confident enough that I wouldn't screw up the template code. BethNaught (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not so much the "Thanks" as it is the exclamation point... "Thanks!". Even simply trimming it to a plain ordinary unenthusiastic "Thanks." would be an improvement. – JBarta (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I could be happy with "Thanks." or to a slightly greater degree "Thank-you." Just not "Thanks!" or "OMG! Thanks so much! Really! OMG!"
uw-wikidata-notyet
Is Wikidata now fully deployed on the English Wikipedia? If it is, then we should delete {{uw-wikidata-notyet}} or at least mark it as obsolete and remove it from {{Single_notice_links}}. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Confusion between Template:Uw-ublock and Template:Uw-block
The template page Template:Uw-ublock displays one set of documentation, but attempting to view or edit it opens a different one, Template:Uw-block/doc (that's -block not -ublock). Rather than fix it I'm reporting it here as perhaps they should be merged.
I suggest that the documentation should also cover, at least with "See also" links, template:uw-username and template:uw-coi-username. Perhaps those should also be merged, I don't know. It's all rather confusing for those of us who only occasionally want to find one of these templates. – FayenaticLondon 09:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I've tried a few dummy edits but can't seem to get them to refresh and show consistent doc pages. – FayenaticLondon 13:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
That is also deliberate; the page Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates contains some code that tries to display one of three tables depending on which template you are looking at. When you are looking at the documentation page itself, and not at one of the templates, it displays the largest list, Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates/All. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that the two templates I mentioned above are covered in one version.
Would anyone here object if I create a category for templates about usernames? – FayenaticLondon 08:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
uw-chat Caution
Either changes should be made to the wording of the {{uw-chat}} family of templates, or new templates should be made. The templates caution against use of a talk page as a forum for general discussion of the topic rather than for improvement of the article. These explanations are appropriate for article talk pages. However, there is a related problem, which is editors posting lengthy rants either on their own talk pages (using their own talk page as a blog) or another editor's talk page (not responding to article questions, but expressing general opinions, typically about how bad Wikipedia is), or on User talk: Jimbo Wales. I am aware that Jimbo has an open-door policy, but many of the rants that are posted are too long, difficult to read, and do not have to do with anything that Jimbo might be able to do or ask the WMF to do. Some editors really do abuse talk pages and need templating. I am not talking about altering other user's comments or refactoring, for which there are talk page guideline templates. Can the templates either be changes or split? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
uw-English for article edits?
Why is there the uw-english template for non-English-language edits to a discussion; but nothing similar when an editor dumps a mass of some other language into an article? Am I missing something obvious? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Uw-english}} has an optional unnamed parameter called "Article" in the documentation so I assume "comment" in the message can refer to addition of non-English text to articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
and came up with the idea of converting vandals to fight the good fight. I came up with a message suitable for use on, say, a user who has clearly demonstrated bad faith but no particular persistence or repulsiveness, such as with this edit. Here it is:
Before starting to use it, I wanted to see if anyone had any objections, maybe per WP:ATWV or WP:BEAN, or improvements. Let me know! FourViolas (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Like the thought FourViolas, but I'd rather get these often juvenile people doing something constructive before trusting them with counter-vandalism work. CV patrollers need to identify "vandalism" accurately and to master procedure, and they need to stay diplomatic, especially when untoward messages arrive on their talk pages. I sometimes point people at the suggested tasks on the WP:Community portal page: Noyster (talk), 10:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I like the sentiment. I'd be interested to know how it'd be implemented though. How would it fit in with warning steps 1, 2, 3 and then 4 (final warning)? Would it precede all of them? Or would you use it instead of warning template 1?
Just a few thoughts. At present, whilst I like what you've come up with, using anti-vandal tools means I probably (personally) wouldn't get much chance to try it out and see how it works. Orphan Wiki 16:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 16 February 2015
Change [[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] to [[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon|link=]]
Uw4
Change [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] to [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon|link=]]
Uw4im
Change [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] to [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon|link=]]
Unlinking images from vandalism templates is a good idea. Just like ClueBot NG has done. QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@QEDK: These templates use a CC-BY-SA image, so the link to the file page is needed to give attribution to the image creator. Where is ClueBot NG using an unlinked image? Is it using this image, or some other image that is in the public domain? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope, ClueBot NG uses these. Same to same. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
All templates of ClueBot NG have unlinked images and also many user warning templates other than the ones I just put in a edit request for. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Then I think ClueBot NG's templates and the others need to be changed. Use of a CC-BY-SA image must be attributed. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
So, what are you going to do? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine, should do it. :) --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Uw-unsourced2 misstates actual policy and usually amounts to biting newbies. Can we narrow it?
Template:Uw-unsourced2 claims that you should not add things to Wikipedia without reliable sources. Well, of course that is the policy for WP:BLP, but, generally speaking, it’s okay to add things that are true, even if they aren’t sourced yet. Someone else can, generally speaking, find citations later. And the vast majority of material on Wikipedia was added without initially having a citation. Quoting WP:V:
All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.
But uw-unsourced2 badly misstates this, and the way it’s used seems likely to discourage new contributors. Can we perhaps narrow the wording so that it only applies to biographies of living people? Or, alternatively, narrow the wording to cases where the material’s verifiability seems dubious?
Strong opposeWP:V applies to everything. It's not "okay to add things that are true, even if they aren’t sourced yet" and we should not be changing wording to imply that it is. New contributors need to learn that adding sourcing is at least as important as adding new content. --NeilNtalk to me 23:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If WP:V applies to everything (a position I support), why would you want to let this template continue to contradict WP:V? And right now Wikipedia's main problem is not "New contributors need to learn…" but rather "We are failing at getting new contributors so badly that the total number of active editors is in decline." Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
And the answer to that is not to lower our standards. New editors are in decline because we require higher quality contributions and all the low hanging fruit has been picked. --NeilNtalk to me 16:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Along with "verifiable" mentioned by NeilN WP:BURDEN also applies. Finding citations later is not the way to go as that allows all manner of unproductive items to creep into an article. MarnetteD|Talk 23:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course WP:BURDEN applies, but this template's text contradicts it; the bold text in BURDEN, "material challenged or likely to be challenged", is what I am proposing that the template should reflect. Finding citations later is, empirically, the way that the majority of productive items got into Wikipedia articles, too. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the standard answer to Kragen's concerns is: "Look, I'm here and I'm challenging it." This kind of sophistry is very hard to counter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Where's the study that backs your empirical claims, please? --NeilNtalk to me 16:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I agree with NeilN here, there's nothing wrong with the current wording in relation to WP:V. I've never heard this claim that most content got added to Wikipedia unsourced and then sources were attached to the content (which would be problematic for all kinds of reasons), but since the template currently reflects policy I don't agree with changing it. - Aoidh (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree As a new editor (actually old old editor who has returned) I am trying to write a page on a writer who is prominent but no page at all!. I'm busy and it would be easier to write down, for instance, a list of her articles and then go back as I have time and add in references. I write professional papers and generally find that it flows better to read enough to get an overall sense, then write, then reference. I DO agree with the policy, but it is limiting, especially for things that would not likely be challenged, such as the titles of her articles. I was there in the wild days when people were reverting articles and it is fascinating to see the evolution of these policies. 2SEETW 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2SEETW (talk • contribs)
Your user sandbox is the appropriate venue for you to write and get the sense of your writings, before adding references and citations and moving it to the mainspace. We have 6,818,878 articles and no deadline. Indeed, publishing unverifiable information and pseudo-information is worse than having no information at all. Bellerophontalk to me 23:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose A great deal of time was invested on making these templates brief and to the point, because people don't read long messages. Also, the current wording of this template does not misrepresent policy at all. It is a message designed to be delivered to a user talk page after another editor has either reverted a change made by the target user or otherwise taken umbrage with it; making the material in question ipso facto "challenged or likely to be challenged". Also, selective referencing of editor retention issues to try and add weight to one's point is unhelpful to the discussion at hand, being a fallacious argument to emotion that in this case amounts to irrelevant handwaving. Bellerophontalk to me 23:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Per Bellerophon, the template is fine. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Make a "not linkedin/notblog" type warning?
Hey, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to create a warning that specifically went into the whole "WP:NOTLINKEDIN" stuff. I've run into a lot of people who are creating pages thinking that this is a database akin to LinkedIn or CrunchBase and as such, doesn't entirely fall under the COI warning criteria. We get a lot of people also thinking that it's kind of like Facebook or other social media sites or blogs. My reason for saying this is because some of the editors will argue one or more of the following: that they do exist, that they are only using their userpage, and/or that this wasn't meant to be promotional because it was just supposed to be a page for the company/organization/etc. They could still be given a COI warning, but I think that at some level it would be good to have a friendly warning that explained more about how Wikipedia isn't a database/webhost/etc since not everyone is really here to do promotion and get confused because they didn't think that they were being promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
So maybe a warning along the lines of "not a profile page"? I want it to be sort of encompass all of this while also making sure that they understand that it's not a database. I've typed out a lot of messages to people who thought that it was like LinkedIn/CrunchBase, so a brief and friendly warning message would definitely be a big help. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The real answer to this is pre-publicity - correcting people's awareness of what Wikipedia is and isn't before they think of creating "their page" - but failing this, a well-drafted notice with clear guidance on when to use it would fill a gap: Noyster (talk), 08:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for non-response (I've been offline). I think this would be a very useful addition to our armoury of templates. I'd change the middle bit to remove "autobiography", as we already have {{Uw-autobiography}}, and spell out very plainly what we're asking them not to do:
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a webhost or a place for blogging or promotion. So please do not try to use Wikipedia to promote yourself or your family, band, product, or company. Our articles have to be about someone or something "notable" - please see WP:N for more about what we mean by this. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time, even if it's on your user page. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia.Thank you.
@Noyster: Updated based on your suggestion, let me know what you think. PhantomTech (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, hope to see it listed soon on Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. I expect to be using it quite frequently. Trouble is Wikipedia predates the whole social media scene; and how are people going to grasp that it isn't just another site on which to set up "my page" or "our page", if we don't adjust the publicity to take account of this?: Noyster (talk), 16:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll move it to the template namespace now. User pages have an edit notice that briefly mentions promotional pages, I think it's somewhat new so hopefully that will help. If not I have an idea I'll be working on in my free time. PhantomTech (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 3 April 2015
This edit request to Template:Uw3 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"harm" should be changed to "disrupt" as per {{uw-generic4}}
TL22 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn as the {{{reason}}} parameter is almost never left unused. --TL22 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 5 April 2015
This edit request to Template:Uw-vaublock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I think the phrase "it has become apparent that it is being used only for vandalism" should be changed to "it is being used only for vandalism" to match {{uw-voablock}}. --TL22 (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
TL22 (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Question: Which template are you talking about? (Note that all the talk pages of user warnings redirect here) Kharkiv07Talk 19:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Why not redirect "uw-disrupt5" to "uw-block" and redirect "uw-test5" and "uw-vandalism5" to "uw-vblock" and bla bla bla... — Pikachu2568pika!sandmoves @ — Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess that people who are not familiar with these templates may think that they are warnings, not block messages. MadGuy7023 (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kendrick7: Regarding your edit comment here from when you reinserted "recent" in front of "maintenance templates in {{uw-tdel2}}:
If an article is a COI, then people who come upon it ten years from now (if the problem hasn't been fixed in that time) have the same need to be aware of it as people who come upon it the day after it's posted.
If an article isn't neutral, and no one has fixed it in five years, it's still non-neutral and it still needs to be flagged.
If someone questioned a statement made in an article by adding a {{cn}} tag, and five years later no one has cited a source, the tag should still be there so that someone seeing it will know to consider that the statement bearing the tag should probably be removed.
Etc.
I believe the templates are dated so that we can see how long it's been since someone questioned the notability of the article (if one has been in place for a year I'll give extra consideration to dealing with it once and for all), since someone requested a citation (if one hasn't been provided and the request was justified, I'm going to remove the tagged statement if the tag has been there long enough), etc. I don't believe you're supposed to update the dates, and don't see why that would be a good thing to do. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It feels like 90% of the time I'm here using wikipedia as an encyclopedia the top of the page has one or more tags from ages ago on it. As such, I consider the proliferation of what I like to call "tagcruft" a real problem. Sure, sometimes something gets tagged as a placeholder that a conscientious editor means to come back to, but if it's been over a year and that hasn't happened, I believe it's perfectly appropriate to remove the tag. If the problem is ongoing, then by all means, another editor should feel free to restore the tag and include a new date to reflect that, whatever the problem is, it's still currently a mess. I remove year+ old tags all the time, and only once in a long while is there ever a complaint. So I find it dubious that a 'plate should exist which sort of insists that tagcruft should be immortal. -- Kendrick7talk 15:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The problems that the tags flag are real problems. One of the things the tags accomplish, by the way, is to include the articles containing them into maintenance categories so that people who are interested in performing some type of maintenance can do so easily. What is the point of removing a still-flawed article from the list of articles needing to have their flaws addressed? And if an article is flawed, what purpose is served by removing it from the list of articles containing similar flaws and then counting on someone to come back and notice it again? The tags do no harm by sitting there, and their value doesn't disappear. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Old tags absolutely do harm. The first thing a reader of an article sees shouldn't be a declaration that Wikipedia doesn't have its act together on the topic at hand, and has no plan to ever do so. On top of that, unfortunately, too many editors think just throwing a tag on an article is "good enough" rather than going to the effort of actually fixing whatever quibble they might have. That's not behavior which should be codified in a template. -- Kendrick7talk 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The first thing a reader sees should be an advisory that the article has flaws. Why would Wikipedia pretend otherwise? We aren't trying to trick people into trusting every article unconditionally. If the purpose wasn't to warn, then we'd just throw pages into maintenance categories and not have these banners at all. And if the tags serve a purpose a week after being posted, they serve the same purpose a year or five years later.
It's perfectly good behavior at least to flag problems in an article even if one doesn't, oneself, have the time, knowledge, or resources necessary to address them. If an article on a technical topic outside of my sphere is obviously confusingly written, I'm not the expert who's going to rewrite it, but I certainly want to flag that it needs rewriting. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
There's absolutely no excuse for removing "old" maintenance tags if the problem in the article is still there. In fact I think it's disruptive editing to remove those tags only because you think they're ugly or whatever. "...a declaration that Wikipedia doesn't have its act together on the topic at hand, and has no plan to ever do so..." -- see Wikipedia:There is no deadline, and then see all the featured articles and Good articles that we already have and the amount of them is growing all the time -- Wikipedia in its entirety is always a work in progress and there's nothing shameful about that -- there's no reason to want to pretend that some articles don't have problems when they do, in fact we have to make it obvious with every article that it is NOT okay here to write advertisements or opinion pieces or completely unsourced articles because it would leave the impression that that's okay and people will create even more of those. Articles that have problems need to be tagged as such because we have rules here and those rules need to be enforced, and this applies in every article, no matter how old it is. No exceptions.
"unfortunately, too many editors think just throwing a tag on an article is "good enough"..." -- you know what? Finding, identifying, and tagging problematic articles is actually hard work if you do it right. Hard and necessary. It's so easy for some single-purpose or niche-purpose account to whip up some text and call it an article, and then apparently it's everyone else's job to fix it up, especially regular/experienced editors'. No. There are tons of articles out there that get created like this, and it would be literally idiotic of me to waste my time on articles about topics that almost no one cares about or topics that are just exceptionally unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Yes, I've helped out with a lot of articles that I have no personal interest in, simply because I have more wiki-skills so doing that takes less time for me than it would for a newbie; but I've also "drive-by" tagged loads of articles that clearly need to be fixed up but I won't volunteer for it each and every time I come across such articles -- sometimes it's just not worth it and other times the original creators or other editors are still around and they will notice and they will work harder on the article because they have more interest or enthusiasm for the article than I do, and that's great. I remove maintenance tags when it seems that the problem is fixed or the problem never existed in the first place, or where there's supposedly a problem but it's not evident and there's no discussion about it on the talk page, or when I'm not sure then I post on the talk page asking about the tag. That's how it works.
Again, some articles literally aren't worth any more time than what it takes for me to read through it and slap on a relevant tag or three. If it does turn out that someone cares about that article then they can fix it. (Or ask about what the problem is if they disagree with those tags; if you tag an article you have to be ready to justify yourself.) — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 19:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with JG & Largo Plazo that maintenance tags should be retained if the problem they indicate has not been resolved. It's better for Wikipedia to show that some contributors are concerned for quality control - better still if the problems are dealt with as a result of the tag: Noyster (talk), 07:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Still it feels like 95% of the tags I remove get no pushback. Per Gryphon "some articles literally aren't worth any more time than what it takes for me to read through it and slap on a relevant tag or three" well, that's exactly how I feel about removing tags. In particular, with old NPOV tags where there's no ongoing discussion on the talk page, it's very hard to figure out exactly what the dispute is or was. Contra Largoplazo, often times, I'm not an expert to know when I shouldn't be removing the tag, just as often as Largo isn't expert enough to know when s/he shouldn't be adding the tag. It's a muddle. FWIW I've tried in the past to add language to WP:PRESERVE stating that it was OK to remove old tags, but the language didn't stick. I'm unaware of any other policy even attempting to take the matter of tags under its wing. On balance, I think it should be just as easy to remove tags as it is to add them, since they aren't really encyclopedic content either way. If there's not a WP:Policy to back it up, it shouldn't be in a user template. -- Kendrick7talk 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It's fairly easy to eyeball an article to see if it's unreferenced or poorly referenced. On the other hand, POV, Outdated, and similar issues are more subjective, and thus harder to determine the reasons they were added. But in those cases, it's prudent to review the article's history and talk page to see if a reason was given, and then remove the headers if there's no reason/discussion. I've done that myself this week several times, and removed the headers as unexplained. But I've also readded several unreferenced headers on articles that had no references, and warned the offending IP (and evidently causing this discussion in the process). - BilCat (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
"I'm not an expert to know when I shouldn't be removing the tag": That's easy. If you are unable to tell whether the problem flagged by a tag currently exists in the article, then trust the judgment of the person who posted it and leave it alone. The problem may remain and, if it does, we don't want its existence to go back into hiding. We don't "forget" after some period of time that we want pages to be improved when they fall short. On the other hand, if you can tell, then leave the tag if it still applies, and remove it if it was never applicable or if the problem has been fixed since the tag was posted.
I went through a number of your earlier deletions of tags. In three cases I restored the old tags, with the original dates, because it was clear to me that the problems they flagged were still present. Therefore, we still want them fixed. Therefore, the reason these tags even exist continue to apply.
In the remaining cases, your edit summary indicated that you removed them because they were old. Improper reason, but in those cases the problem being flagged didn't, in my evaluation, exist to begin with (I think one of them questioned an article's notability, but there were adequate appropriate sources) or else the original problem had been fixed since the tags were posted (but the tags hadn't been removed at the same time). —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Still it feels like 95% of the tags I remove get no pushback -- probably because no one cares. The original editors have left and no one else cares about those articles. Your removal of the tags is not noticed. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 08:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is this listed to be used for indefinite blocks on accounts? One could be blocked for a shorter duration for making personal attacks, and also anonymous users could also be blocked for this offense. I recommend removing the "yes" for the indef parameter, adding the anon parameter, and then changing the copy to read "... blocked from editing for making personal attacks or threats of violence toward other editors. — MusikAnimaltalk 19:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
And I guess also rename the template to uw-pablock (personal attacks block). Or should we just create a separate one? The harassment block template does not serve the same purpose as a personal attacks block, and right now we only have a "attack only account" template. Personally I'd go with option 1 and move this to uw-pablock, with which we could always set indef=yes as needed. — MusikAnimaltalk 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Since this doesn't seem to be getting any responses (I posted this message on April 8th, re-listed it here and still no response), I will now carry out this change. Feel free to revert if you think Ambox warning blue is indeed the way to go. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason for the requested change? π♂101 (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"Hover over curly braces" does not work
Hovering over the curly braces only produces a tooltip showing the unhelpful "please use subst". (Related issue: an editor may mistakenly hover over the link, which shows something else again in a tooltip.)--greenrd (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hover over the braces themselves, not the text that's between them. (It is kind of weird and inconvenient, I'll admit that.) — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 09:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015
This edit request to Template:Uw-c&pmove has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
What exactly do you want added and where? Which "user warning" are you talking about? You linked to a category. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 16:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You know what this means; The message will notify the blocked person they can't send emails to other users. And even further, it's compatible with notalk.
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to email other users has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your abilities to email other users and edit your talk page have also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
indef=yes|noemail=yes|notalk=yes
Source code
{{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{noemail}}}|yes|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{notalk}}}|yes|Your abilities to email other users and edit your talk page have ''also'' been revoked.|Your ability to email other users has ''also'' been revoked.}}|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{notalk}}}|yes|Your ability to edit your talk page has ''also'' been revoked.}}}} {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{notalk}}}|yes|If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then contact administrators by submitting a request to the ''[[WP:UTRS|Unblock Ticket Request System]]''.|If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by first reading the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.}}
COI is not limited to being "affiliated with" something - one can also be in a dispute with a person, institution, or company, and that too constitutes a COI. Examples here and this COIN case, which was brought by someone who was in a RW dispute with another user and tried to use COIN to attack the other user. I suggest changing this to "have an external relationship with" to be more broad - this also follows the language in WP:COI. I boldly made the change. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC) (added link to template.. didn't realize this was a centralized Talk page for all user Talk templates Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC))
Shortcut to directly link to the "Levels" section?
I'm thinking it might be a good idea to create an anchor and 'shortcut' directly to the 'Levels' section of this article. Maybe using "WP:UWLEVELS" as the shortcut?... Does anyone have any objection to this? Or suggestions? (P.S. I know what "WP:UWUL" is stands for, but what is "WP:UWLS" short for?! Or am I just being thick here?...) TIA. --IJBall (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Proposed language change
I want to change the warning language so that it does not insist that editor who leaves the warning is the same one who reverted the edit. I sometimes leave warnings in these cases where another editor reverted the vandalism. I'm sure it's quibbling, but I want the language to be correct and not introduce the chance for any confusion.
current
" I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to article name because it did not appear constructive."
proposed " I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to article name have been reverted because it did not appear constructive."
" I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to article name have been undone because they did not appear constructive."
Any objections/improvements? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
If you make this change, I would say "have been undone" to avoid WP:JARGON. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Updated proposal. Also changed "it did" to "they did".--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I strongly support this proposal – I often desire to leave templates for reversions that other editors have done, but have sometimes not bothered because of the "...so I have reverted undone it..." language used in some of these templates. The best solution might be if there were two versions of these templates: one with the "...so I have undone it..." language in tact, and a second version as you describe that could perhaps be triggered with some sort of parameter (I dunno, like "{{subst:uw-vandalism2|List of metro systems|me=no}}" or something to trigger your revised, non-first-person version of the text...). --IJBall (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
so that if someone else clicks on the link, it will go to the blocked user's links instead of the clicker's links.
Gparyani (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Then the links won't display properly when it's used as a block message (as is frequently done). —Cryptic 00:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cryptic: Then some code should be added that detects whether this is being placed on a user talk page, and then only do this. Gparyani (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cryptic and Gparyani: Such as [[Special:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk|Contributions/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|MyContributions}}|Your account's edits]] and/or [[{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk|User:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|Special:MyPage}}|username]]? --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there any way I can test changes ...without being blocked? I think it'll work if subst: is changed to safesubst:. Alakzi (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Going to need to be blocked to test it definitevely; Mediawiki's always been fussy about what it displays in interface messages. Safesubst is worth a try, and I'll experiment, but I suspect it's the parserfunctions that are breaking it. —Cryptic 02:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite certain that it's caused by subst:; this slightly odd behaviour of subst: is why {{Substcheck}} works. Alakzi (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. (I used to understand this stuff, honest.) On the plus side, with safesubst in all four locations, it works properly as a block message and when not substed, but is still displaying the Special:MyContributions and Special:MyPage links when substed on a user talk page. User:Cryptic/sandbox if you want to experiment some more; I don't mind inflating my block log. —Cryptic 02:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. :-) Alakzi (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Doesn't appear to be working...see Special:BlockList and go to the talk page of a user recently blocked for this reason. Gparyani (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've disabled the template because I assume User:Alakzi is watching this page now. If you would like to set up an alternative account for testing purposes I will happily block it for you :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You'll also notice that the blocked users' talk page is not placed in Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names. It works when I do it on me talk page, so I'm guessing the template is expanded prior to its insertion on their talk page, either due to the blocking interface or a script the blocking admin's been using. Alakzi (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: I don't know; you may want to ask at WP:VPT, where WMF employees sometimes respond. Gparyani (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Update: Result of the above was to keep {{uw-test3}}. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:uw-move4
Isn't "maliciously" a rather strong word? I propose to change it to "controversially". Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 20:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's a level 4...at that point the editor in question has presumably received at least one prior warning for the same problem and is essentially repeating their mistake despite the warning. If it was a lower-level warning I might agree, but in this case I think "malicious" is probably fairly justified, though I'll defer to the opinions of other editors on this. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I (primarily) designed and have been using the Template:uw-plotsum1 and (rarely) Template:uw-plotsum2 user warning templates for quite some time in situations where editors added significant amounts of material to plot summaries, beyond that delineated at WP:FILMPLOT and the other relevant areas.
There is some question as to whether the Level 2 version is really necessary; I'm content either way.
For anyone wondering why there's no level 3 or 4 on these, the theory has been that anyone who needed that level of warning on this type of behavior was, at that point, either edit-warring or at least engaging in disruptive editing, for which there are already warning templates available.
Thanks for your assistance and input! DonIago (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Done Added as nobody seemed to object after 5 days. DonIago (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Required user notification not done warning?
Is there a template for warning a user when a required user notification was not done? example - User:Patient 32 not notified. If not, there should be (and Twinkle should have it). I tried a couple search methods and came up empty. I think most noticeboards require notifying a user when they/their edits are the subject.--Elvey(t•c) 16:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I would hope that that doesn't come up often enough to require a template, and perhaps in such cases a more personal touch is a preferable approach in any case. That said, I wouldn't necessarily opposte a gently worded warning template. If a user is making a habit of not notifying people then there's probably a larger issue. DonIago (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
See {{SD warn-needed}}. I used to use this regularly. Since most taggers now use Twinkle or another script that always notifies, I almost never need it any more. DES(talk) 13:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
uw-aoablock moved to uw-pablock
I've boldly moved {{uw-aoablock}} (attack-only account block) to {{uw-pablock}} (personal attacks block), as there's no fitting template for personal attacks allowing for temporary blocks and to anonymous users (I wouldn't consider {{uw-hblock}} to be the same). I hope this was a good move, as I can only imagine blocking accounts/IPs for personal attacks is more common than blocking an "attack-only account". — MusikAnimaltalk 20:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed change to language of all uw-speedy templates
I propose changing the language of these templates to address not only the creator of the article, but also editors who have removed the speedy deletion tag with no explanation given. For example, something along the lines of this:
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself, or without providing a valid reason for the removal. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.
Of course I'm open to suggestions on a more succinct wording, but this would avoid having to use some other template in these cases (such as removal of maintenance templates).-War wizard90 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I would object. Article creators are specifiically forbidden to remove speedy deletion templates. Any other editor may do so, and while an explanation is surely good practice, it is not required. I plave this template with some frequencey. If it is changed so that it is no longer specific to article creators, I will have to create soem other template that is so specific, because tht is the message I want to send. DES(talk) 13:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Since when is an unexplained removal of a speedy deletion template okay? These are commonly reverted or rollbacked, many times the article creator simply logs out and removes the speedy deletion tag in an attempt to circumvent the process. IMHO an unexplained removal of a speedy deletion tag should be treated exactly the same as an article creator removing it. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the policy is Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. if you see that a speedy tag has been removed and you still think the article should be deleted, then you send it to WP:AfD - an irreversible move - that's the way to draw out any valid reasons to keep the article: Noyster (talk), 07:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A policy I believe that needs to be revised to say anyone may contest by removing the tag and providing a reason for doing so. However, since that is not what the policy currently states, I will instead pursue a new template specific for editors removing speedy deletion notices without providing an edit summary, or reasoning by some manner. I don't think it's too much to ask a contesting editor to provide a reasoning for doing so, and mostly I'm concerned about page creators logging out and removing the speedy deletion tag. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Adding a "harassment directed to X" to Uw-harass
Hi, I am proposing to add an "as you did at x to user" in the templates uw-harass 1 through 4/4im. This will clearly tell the user who harassed others who was the victim. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Foobarto UBX, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Foobarto UBX.
That can't be done because the warnings then would need 3 parameters, on Wikipedia user warnings have only 2 parameters. Adding an extra parameter could potentially break the way Twinkle posts these warnings. You may however notify users at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle of this change. --TL22 (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I would oppose on WP:BEANS grounds, anyway. All this would do is focus attention on the harassment victim, and increase the likelihood of sneaky vengeful actions against that party. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
AfC warning template
I am recommending with the blessing of a couple other people here that a warning template be created for people who resubmit articles for creation multiple times without improvement. The issue of re-submission creates a even more chaotic backlog than already exists. Please let me know of any way I can help. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
If they've already ignored the warnings right next to the "Resubmit" button, they're not likely to pay attention to a template message. I've had better results leaving a short personalized note and, in the worst cases, add |small=yes to the {{AFC submission|d}} template to hide the resubmit button to remove temptation. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Potential addition of a {{uw-recreatedcsd}} template
It might be good if we had a {{uw-recreatedcsd}} or similar template, to warn a user for a copy-paste recreation of a previously CSD'd article. It happens a fair deal, and when it does generally needs to be dealt with fast. It would help increase awareness among new contributors that when an article is CSD'd, it's gone for a reason, and just recreating the same content is unacceptable. Thoughts? | Naypta✉opened his mouth at 19:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Naypta, We already have {{uw-create1}} thru {{uw-create4}}. How would your proposed {{uw-recreatedcsd}} differ, except for specifically citing WP:CSD? DES(talk) 21:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Those templates simply say "you've done something wrong in the article". What I would propose the text for {{uw-recreatedcsd1}} to read, for instance, would be something like this:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for trying to improve the world's largest encyclopaedia. I hope it was done in good faith. However, I noticed that you've been recreating content that's been previously subject to aparameter goes here - CSD or PROD or XFD. Articles that are deleted will always have a deletion reason visible in a red box on the old article page(if CSD parameter specified "and a deletion code you can look up at this page"). It's fine to recreate an article if you've made significant improvements to it that mean the deletion criteria no longer apply, but recreating the same content will result in redeletion. Thanks.
What do you think? | Naypta✉opened his mouth at 04:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Naypta, that might be useful, and I don't suppose it could hurt. I would remove the third sentence: "I hope it was done in good faith." as this could be seen as sarcastic or as an indirect way of suggesting bad faith. I would add a suggestion to contact the deleting admin, which is always a good idea. Is this going to be part of a 4-template series, or a single issue template? If a series, the later ones should probably mention the option of asking for permission to recreate at WP:DRV. (If a single issue, it should perhaps be mentioned here.) If you are going to include prods, note that anyone can ask for a prod to be undeleted at any time at WP:REFUND, and unless it was a BLPPROD or would have qualified for speedy deletion, it will normally be undeleted pretty much automatically. On the other hand, after an XfD it is generally better to create a draft and ask at DRV. The template might be simpler and clearer if it ONLY handled CSD deletions. For one thing, there is no policy or guideline against recreating an article deleted by PROD, and no good reason to warn anyone who does so. On the other hand, after an XfD a new article by the same name may well be tagged for G4 speedy based on the name alone. The cases are sufficiently different that I think having "one template to rule them all" is probably a bad idea. Do others have any views on the matter? DES(talk) 13:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Way too much jargon for new users. Don't expect them to know (or care) what CSD or PROD or XFD mean. Just say "recreated content that was previously deleted". --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Ahecht. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:VP/Pr in the "template:uw-english" section; I've proposed that it be either deprecated or greatly reformatted. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This template needs to get the point across that machine translation is available (maybe even link directly to Google Translate or something) and that the burden of doing the translation is on the non-English speaker, not on all of the site's English speakers. Right now this template has kind of a "get off en.wiki" tone to it, and this is unproductive. We should be helping users understand how to participate, not telling them they can't. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Google translate is literally worse than nothing. It would be much better to preserve the foreign text so that a human fluent in the language can translate it than replace it with the garbled ambiguous mess left behind by machine translation (this isn't just my opinion, it's codified at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:MACHINETRANSLATION is about translating articles. Machine translations (I mentioned Google's because it's familiar not because I think it's superior) are generally good enough to get the point across in talk page posts. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't divide discussions. This is being discussed at WP:VP/Pr as indicated above. No need to double post here.LeadSongDogcome howl! 16:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done. As the template is currently protected to stop edit warring, any substantive change made during this period should demonstrably be the result of consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
). You can barely see the visual effects and I think that you can hardly say that there is anything creative there. I do not think that the 25×25 pixels PNG thumbnail can be seen as something copyrightable. Therefore, it shouldn't be necessary to link to the file when the image is used at that resolution. I am also doubting that the SVG file as a whole is copyrighted, but I am unaware of any court rulings on the originality of gradients and fonts, so it may be safer to keep the copyright tags there. There is also the issue of accessibility: the threshold of originality differs from country to country, and keeping the copyright tags there simplifies things for people who need to use the image in a country with a lower threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.
Please stop. If you continue to harm Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Moved from Template talk:Uw-sigdesign
. Aside from the length part of it is also somewhat superfluous: If i misunderstood the requirements, wouldn't my unblock rationale be inherently genuine and sincere? And isn't fixing a real problem a real improvement as well? If i were to rephrase it i would probably state something along the lines of: "If your future are beneficial to Wikipedia as opposed to being promotional your account may be unblocked upon request".
fixed by substituting 
Not done: It's not deprecated; it's a permitted alias. Also, WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
or
) located above the edit window.
Please refrain from making disruptive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
Please discontinue your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, we will block you from editing.
Last warning: You may be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.
Question: Which template are you talking about? (Note that all the talk pages of user warnings redirect here) Kharkiv07Talk 19:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
be changed to Nuvola apps important blue.svg 
? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself, or without providing a valid reason for the removal. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Foobar to UBX, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Foobar to UBX.