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.
I came to thinking about this when I encountered this edit. Then, I read through the template messages, and noticed that there were not a set that specifically addressed hate speech and/or improper use of epithets. While, I guess, it could be covered by the disruptive editing, personal attack, and defamation warnings, I feel that the warning system could be improved by having templates for this behavior. Examples:
Please refrain from using racial epithets while editing Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Please stop using Wikipedia to spread racial epithets and hate speech. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia needs to stay neutral and must not be used to spread racist doctrines.
Any input welcome, thanks. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea, but as you mention the current templates are sufficient. Perhaps you could use the additional text section to highlight the Wiki policies pertaining to hate speech. Maybe something like, "Please stop using Wikipedia to spread racial epithets and hate speech. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to issue personal attacks or spread your ideology." —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you would run into an issue crafting templates specific enough to be practical. Just in the examples above, we have several potential kinds of violations, including vandalism, bias, giving gratuitous weight to offensive content, and personal attacks on other editors. It will be challenging to make a single template that is effective when probably only one of these violations is at issue. --Bsherr (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Uw-nonfree wording
I'm wondering whether the wording of Template:uw-nonfree should be slightly tweaked from "We always appreciate when users upload files" to something along lines of "We always appreciate when users upload files or add them to articles". There are not really anyother uw template related to non-free content, so this one is used pretty much in all cases.
The most common problem related to non-free content use seems to be people inappropriately adding already uploaded non-free files to articles; most of the time this is done in good faith by editors simply unaware that not all files are licensed the same and that each non-free use needs to comply with WP:NFCCP. Anyway, I occasionally use this template in some of those cases, but more than a couple of times the response has been along the lines of "I didn't upload the file, so it's not my problem". Most people never really seem to read beyond the first sentence and get to the part where it says or "or added to a page may fail our non-free policy" or they simply read through it because they overly focus on the first sentence which only mentions uploading. There are no multiple level warning templates for non-free use, so I can understand trying to keep the template's wording as friendly as possible, but it might be best to tweaked that first sentence a bit to mention not only uploading, but also the adding of files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a good proposal. --Bsherr (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
My new single-level advisory for users like me who are assuming good faith, but have a history of making noticeable mistakes. This should go on my talk page... :(
Thank you protecting the encyclopedia from vandalism and assuming good faith in your contributions. We really appreciate it! However, it seems you are not having your best editing day. Don’t worry; not one Wikipedian has never made a mistake in all their time. This could be because edits have low accuracy sometimes or, in your opinion, that Wikipedia is just a very fast-paced encyclopedia.
Aside from our Five Pillars, we also have remedies that can help you avoid further mistakes you might cause in the future. We hope your insights continue to improve our encyclopedia, and remember that even if you tend to avoid making mistakes, it doesn’t mean they won’t occur again. Thank you.
When issuing a vandalism or other multi-level warning, can one arbitrarily start at level 2 template or whatever level seems appropriate? (Or skip levels on subsequent warnings?) For example, if an editor's first, or only, edit appears to be egregious enough that a {{uw-vandalism1}} seems not bitey enough to warn them off, or too polite for the infraction. This question was spurred by a case of first/only edit by an IP-6 anon that seems to deserve a {{uw-vandalism4im}} for hate speech but has just enough (intentional) ambiguity to it that an "immediate" level may be too strong.
But actually I'm more interested in the general case of whether one can start/continue at any appropriate numerical level. (Previous discussions in archives 8 and 14 were not sufficiently helpful to resolve this.)
Currently, the terms skip and any level do not appear anywhere on the project page. If there is general consensus about this, I'd like to see something added to the project page about whether one can, or cannot, skip levels and under what circumstances. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Many users start with level 2 for many templates as a lot of the level 1 templates include an invite to "comment on my talk page" (with link), and some editors are not interested in inviting disruptive users back to the user space. The level 1 vandalism template recently had that bit removed for just these reasons. But people still avoid it with other templates by starting on level 2.
The talk page invites aside, generally you should start at level 1 and work your way up as some people make just honest mistakes. But, sometimes level 2 or more is called for, as others are deliberately vandalizing, may have made multiple edits to a page, or disrupted multiple pages, posted particularly heinous content (perhaps needing revdel) or used language and/or markup that indicates a proficiency with Wikipedia and are likely block/ban evaders. Just use your judgement. If some admin comes along and says, "you should've used a lower level", just explain your reasoning. But as long as your not abusing the notices, I wouldn't worry about it.
If you'd like a change in the directions, perhaps post a suggested re-write and start an RfC. - wolf 22:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I feel an immediate lvl 2 warning for vandalism (if I'm not confident it's deliberate, I'd place a lvl 1 editing test - so no "accidental vandalism" exists for me) can certainly be justified. I have occasionally used it for massive disruptive editing. I don't really use immediate lvl 2s for other things. I do occasionally post even higher immediate lvl warnings for particularly bad attacks either on other editors or defamatory BLP warnings. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
In response to your policy change questions. It should be made clear skipping levels is permitted early on in the project page, however de-lineating cases too much becomes it's own problem as I think setting it out will be impossible to do well enough (certainly without being nauseatingly long). Nosebagbear (talk)
Agreed. Leave it on a case-by-case basis, with editors using their own judgement, but prepared to justify their choices if called upon to do so. - wolf 22:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It should be noted that these warning templates are not required when warning someone at all. You just have to warn them. They are provided as a optional convenience if you don't want to bother typing out a warning. At no point is there any mandated process that requires you to assign them to someone in a certain order, or go through each level, or anything like that. If someone is vandalizing Wikipedia or edit warring, or something like that, tell them to stop and refer them to the relevant policy. Tell them they can be blocked if they don't stop. If they continue, refer them to the appropriate noticeboard. It's that simple. If you're engaging in debates over what "level" of template you have to use, you're doing it wrong. It really doesn't matter much if you use them all in order, if you skip one in the order, or if you don't use them at all and instead just write them a note. Best practice says you have to warn someone before you block them to give them a chance to self-correct. Templates may be useful to do so, but are not required. Wikipedia:Vandalism has more information about this, and is clear that the templates are NOT a requirement. --Jayron32 14:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If I come across an change from | birth_name = Michael Joseph Jackson to | birth_name = Dickhead, to me that is nothing but intentional and I would have no problem giving the editor a final or only warning straight out. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the general question, I'm fine with editors starting at something other than level I and not mindlessly insisting that all four levels be delivered before a block. I've seen situations that I felt were rather egregious, and deserved skipping a few steps.
That said, I'm going to push back a little bit on this specific example. I fully understand, and agree that it's hard to think up an AGF rationale; in other words there's no scenario I can think of in which this might be considered an improvement to the encyclopedia. (Maybe if it was someone other than Michael Jackson but no, let's not get distracted). However, I can easily imagine a first-time editor reading something that says that yes they can edit the article and thinking to themselves that this cannot possibly be true. Such an edit may be a simple test of the proposition, and they are likely to be surprised that it actually worked. That doesn't mean the edit should stand, and obviously, they could've tested the proposition with a different edit, but I can tell you that I've seen a number of instances where someone makes ahead scratching edit and shortly thereafter reverts it. My general assumption is that they are testing to see if it's really true they can edit, and when they find that they can, in many cases, they undo it. However, our new page patrollers are so vigilant that they might see the edit before that happens. I think a warning and not necessarily a final warning, giving the impression they've done something horrendous, is always warranted. I tend to feel differently if instead of a one-word edit, it's a full page of nonsense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the point is you don't have to use a template. You can (and probably should, if you believe you want to engage the user and correct their behavior) just write them a note and explain why what they did was bad. Templates are not required ever. You can deal with the nuance between "hey, I think you made a mistake, can we talk about it" vs. "hey, it's really obvious you're just here to screw around, cut it out or you'll get blocked!" And the difference between those two statements can be expressed by actually just typing them out to the user in question. --Jayron32 17:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm proposing to merge the AfD, CfD, FfD and MfD cascades into one XfD cascade to stop users from deleting Deletion Discussion templates and comments-- All four of these cascades just clog up the chart and I think merging would definitely improve readability and usability. StormContent 03:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Seems like a pretty minimal difference to me, but I do like consistency. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me, Sl763. I think you can safely make the change. I can't imagine anyone objecting. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Done I've made the change Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Uw-test1 request
Please add parameter to Uw-test1 to remove "recent". Sometimes I see tests that are not recent and the user hasn't been notified about their tests. Thinker78 (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps remove the word "recently" entirely? I'm not sure it's necessary. --Bsherr (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
From the introduction to WP:UW: " If a user stopped vandalizing some time ago, and their edit histories don't suggest a pattern of chronic vandalism, there's no need to warn or block them at all; a welcome template for new users might help future visits." To me this implies that templates should only be used in cases of relatively recent activity. I think for less recent activity a personalized message, or none at all, may be more appropriate. DonIago (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If the bad edit came from an IP address, then a message should only be sent if the edit was quite recent (last few hours), as IP addresses often change frequently. An exception to this is if the editing pattern shows clear evidence that it's the same person making the edits. If the bad edit is from a registered account, then the risk of sending a message to the wrong person is eliminated. However, I still would limit messages to relatively recent activity. Sending a note about an old edit is more likely to cause confusion than anything else.--Mojo Hand(talk) 18:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Change {{unblock-un|user=your new username here|reason=your reason here}} with {{unblock-un|your new username here|your reason here}}
as having user= doesn't auto populate new username while renaming. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done I've fixed the rename link instead. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Superfluous content in Template:Uw-copyrightblock
I'd like to see if there is consensus for this edit [1] to Template:Uw-copyrightblock. It was previously made as a bold edit then reverted, but it doesn't seem there was any subsequent discussion.
It deletes from the template meesage the content,
You have been previously warned that this is against [[Wikipedia:Copyright status of Wikipedia|policy]], but have persisted
Two reasons. Firstly, the sentence before, "You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission," already includes a link to Wikipedia:Copyright violations, which is the more relevant policy, and having the second link only confuses the matter, I think. Secondly, "You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted" is really applicable to all blocks, and not just for copyright violations. It's probably obvious without saying it, but if it does need to be said, it should probably be incorporated into the meta block template instead of just here. --Bsherr (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
All right, I'm going to try it out. --Bsherr (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Ask for help
I think it would be better for them to ask for help on "my talk page" instead of the help desk. Since I would be the one who sees, and deals with the mistake A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@A 10 fireplane: - which template was that? - wolf 17:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes... there was a discussion about that awhile back and the consensus was that it was preferred that these users be directed to the help desk instead of the notifying editors talk page. Individual editors have the option of mentioning their talk page in the optional comment box, the notice includes the notifying editor's signature, which links directly to their user/user talk pages anyway (any users with even basic wiki-know-how will know to go there), but for pure fly-by IP vandals, the preference was to not include an express invite to the notifying editor's talk page, so as to avoid vandalism to those pages out of spite. These vandals, and first time users with no idea what they're doing (but with no I'll intent) are better served by the help desk anyway. This all came about after it was discovered that many users were going straight to the level 2 warning, just to avoid the talk page invite at level 1. So the notice was changed. Hope this helps - wolf 17:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Should we remove mention of templates from {{Uw-delete4}}, per WP:BEANS? So far the miscreant has blanked four articles, and may be keen to hear of a way to remove content more efficiently… Certes (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it's more important that the template properly describes the reason for the warning. If the disruptive behavior is that the user is removing templates in bad faith, a user warning that talks only about page blanking won't fit the situation anymore. But I personally cannot imagine a situation in which I would give all four levels of the user warning to a user for this behavior. It is often underappreciated that, per Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout#Multi-level templates for vandalism, one should apply the level that corresponds to the intent in each instance. --Bsherr (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Can someone add a message to contact trustandsafetywikimedia.org if the account is locked? (Maybe we need a new parameter? I am not familiar with enwiki procedures so just posting here.) — regards, Revi 10:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@-revi: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
1. The link for the "too similar" wording goes to the "Real names" section of the username policy; in this context, it should actually go to the "Similar usernames" section.
2. I'm not sure where the problem with this lies exactly, but I've noticed at least two cases of administrators blocking accounts with impersonator usernames and this template was used in the block reason even when it was a "hard block" so the template should have been uw-uhblock-double (and it was - on the talk page of the blocked account). Diamond Blizzardtalk 04:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Wording of uw-subtle1
Template uw-subtle1 currently welcomes the user and thanks them for their contributions. I'm not sure we should be thanking or welcoming vandals even if it's the lowest warning possible. I recently used the template to warn someone who was changing numbers around in an article and immediately felt a bit sick in my stomach that the template actually welcomes and thanks them for their contributions. I immediately switched it for uw-error1 (they were adding false information after-all so I believe it still fits). Should the wording of uw-subtle1 be changed? -=Troop=- (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The way this template is currently worded ("We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page may fail our non-free policy.") seems to place more emphasis on uploaders rather than editors adding non-free files to articles, even though this template can be used in both cases. A couple of times when I've used this for the latter case, I received a response along the lines of "I'm not the uploader, so don't warn me". In many cases, the original uploader of a non-free file has nothing to do with the subsequent uses of the file and it's often these additional uses which turn out to be a problem. So, I'm wondering if there's a way to tweak the "We appreciate..." sentence a bit to take the emphasis off uploading. Maybe "We always appreciate it when users try to improve Wikipedia." would work? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
That could work. Or that sentence could be removed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I know these are not technically user talk warnings, but they are user warnings, so I think the people here would be interested in this discussion about making the edit filter warnings more friendly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Uw-subtle3
I've redirected Template:Uw-subtle3 to Template:Uw-vandalism3 as it was before. Here's my reasoning: The uw-subtle series is for edits involving unexplained small changes that may be vandalism. However, level 3 is for assuming bad faith, and once one is assuming bad faith of a subtle change, it is vandalism, and the vandalism series can be used. I believe that was the original reasoning for this setup too. --Bsherr (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with your logic, however I reverted your change before I saw this discussion. If the redirect is restored, the template documentation and the max parameter should be updated, as well as the parameters of Uw-subtle1 and Uw-subtle2. It would probably be better in that case just to delete this template. Mojoworker (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
In the warning it directs users to the warning editors talkpage, if I'm warning them I would prefer to send them to say the help desk as to avoid vandalism on my talk page. And any vandal with decent knowledge of Wikipedia would know where to leave me a message. A 10 fireplaneImform me 15:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Vandals don't have questions generally. This has come up before, I suggested the same thing about removing it as I remember. Don't think it matters much. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: ok, I was just wanting to avoid vandalism on my talk page, I suppose your right tho. None has occurred yet A 10 fireplaneImform me 19:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree with A 10 fireplane 100%. Template:Uw-vandalism1 used to invite would-be vandals back to the vandal-fighter's user-talkpage. After some effort (and aggravation), I was able to get that changed about a year ago. It's come up before, more than once, that numerous editors will just start with a level 2 warning to avoid "the invite". But a look at all these notices shows that some have an invite to the poster's user-talkpage, while others just simply direct the recipient of the notice to the Help Desk. I think they should all go to the help desk. Thoughts? - wolf 01:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
A 10 fireplane - Warning message templates and notices should always provide a link to your user talk page so that recipients can easily see who its from and reach out to you if necessary. This is important, not because we care about vandals and trolls having the ability to find you and wreck your user talk page, but (much more importantly) in the event that you accidentally warn, notify, or revert the edits by a legitimate good faith user. They need to be able to reach out to you and straighten things out and as soon as possible. The risk of having your user talk page messed up once in awhile is nothing in priority compared to the benefit and necessity to make sure that good faith editors of all skill levels can easily find and reach you.
From my 11+ years of experience recent changes patrolling on Wikipedia, I can absolutely tell you this: No matter what you do, how hard you try, and what ideas or thoughts you come up with - vandals and trolls will still be able to easily find, edit, and trash up your user talk page if they want to. Even if we were to modify this and the 60+ other templates to remove the link to your user talk page from each message, it wouldn't stop anything. The vandal could still easily find you with the article's edit history, their user talk page edit history, and... haha... in the signature that you leave with each warning message. If your goal is to become a long-term and highly experienced editor in the "recent changes patrolling world" who everyone in the community knows by name because of how involved and reliable you are, you're going to need to get used to the idea that vandals are going to vandalize and trash your talk page, and leave troll messages, threats, insults, and other nasty things there and in an attempt to get a response and a reaction from you. Just do what I do: Ignore them completely. Don't touch, edit, respond to, undo, remove, or do anything else to your user talk page when they vandalize, troll, or leave degrading or insulting messages at you. Treat is as if it didn't exist there at all. Someone else will revert it for you while they're conducting their patrols, and the vandal will quickly get bored and tired of it and move on. Easy peasy. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 21:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Oshwah:Alright, I understand. While I would like to avoid vandalism on my user pages I can completely understand how in the grand scheme removing the link wouldn't really affect anything. Also I never even thought about the fact that in the event of a false warning I would hate for the user to be unable (or not know how) to get in contact with me. As just happened today actually I had a user (who I warned for a Unexplained removal of content) apologize and ask me what they could to to remedy the situation.
A 10 fireplane - Trust me, trolling and vandalism on user talk pages is an inevitable event. I've had vandals and trolls leave me some nasty messages over 5 times today... you'll get used to it. Just remember that these people are just doing what they're doing simply to be trolls and to try and get a negative response or reaction from you. No matter what happens, always remember that the best thing you can do is to never give them what they want. These are kids at school, trolls who have nothing else to do, and people who feel that they have the "mask of anonymity" because they're behind a computer screen (even though they really don't if it really came down to it); they're going to be insulting, they're going to be nasty, they're going to vandalize your talk page, they're going to call you names, and if you have the right mindset and a high level of self-esteem and self-confidence - you'll just laugh at the messages and edits, ignore them, and go about your duties. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 21:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I got ya, I'll just ignore them and go on editing. No need to give in. A 10 fireplaneImform me 21:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@A 10 fireplane and Oshwah: To br fair, all notices and warnings already have a link to the poster's talk page; the poster's signature. That's why I don't see a need for a second, redundant utp link, when a more helpful link, such as the help desk, seems to make more sense. As I said, several others have previously spoken up saying that they skip right to level 2 to avoid the "here is my talk page" bit, (which isn't the best use of the tiered warning system). Myself, I just manually removed the invite to my tp and added a link to the help desk until the uw-vandalism1 template was changed last year. There is something off-putting about posting a warning the talk page of some obnoxious vandal that starts off with "You just vandalized that article, don't do it again, or else" and ends with "oh, and by the way... HERE is my talk page" (you know, in case you feel like continuing your vandalism spree, why not use this handy-dandy link to the page of the guy that just warned you). Anyway... JMHO. Cheers fellas. - wolf 01:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thewolfchild - Correct; I indicated this in my response above (regarding the signature) - they'll find you regardless... lol. However, new users aren't all familiar with signatures and might require a sentence that explicitly says to "message me on my user talk page here" for them to understand and navigate there. As you indicated, this is in a level 1 warning that assumes good faith. And typically when you assume good faith and are talking to the user about a potentially concerning edit, you'll typically tell them to not hesitate to message you if they have questions. I also will sometimes skip to a level 2 warning if the vandalism is blatant enough to warrant skipping past the "good faith notice" bit. Some levels of disruption just don't call for it. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 01:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild and Oshwah:I can see both sides. While you don't want vandalism on you user pages you also want GF editors to be able to contact you. I'll take y'alls advice and if its blatant enough vandalism skip to a level 2 warning A 10 fireplaneImform me 04:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@A 10 fireplane: - just remember that with the actual level-1 vandalism notice, that "invite" to your talk page in no longer there. It was changed to an invite to the help desk last year, so you don't need to "skip" that one and use level-2. Most level-1 notices still have the talk page invite, but that one a couple others don't. FYI - wolf 06:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Please change |max=3 to |max=4 in the transclusion of {{Templatesnotice}}, and remove the <noinclude> before the category—it is extraneous, as there is one before {{Templatesnotice}}. This applies to both linked templates. Thank you! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This is to warn users who add pages to no-existent categories (see WP:REDNOT), causing them to be listed at Special:WantedCategories. On average, 50–100 such redlinks appear every day, and it is nearly a full-time job to keep the list clear.
So far, there has been no standardised warning for this. I hope that the wording I have used makes sense.
I would like to get this added to WP:TWINKLE, but am unsure how to go about that. Any suggestions? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this is something editors need to be warned about. Some authors are more concerned about the articles they write not the categories in which they are or should be placed. Plus it's very easy to add a category for any drive by editor who notices it. If not sure, better to tag the article with {{uncategorized}} or {{category improve}}. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Below point aside, I happen to agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. It's a matter of judgment, but I think adding {{uncategorized}} delivers the point better than a UW message on the user's talk page. I'm curious if others agree. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I noticed your reversion. I've been at WP:UTM a long time, and I am not seeing how Jax 0677 acted inappropriately. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, he can propose a new template on the talk page, or he can create and add it himself. Likewise, if anyone disagrees, he or she can start a talk page discussion, or revert it or nominate it for deletion. But the choice of whether to be bold first or discuss first is each user's. --Bsherr (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It says when creating a new template to notify on this talk page "so that it can be fully integrated as a warning template if there are no major objections.". I assumed "no major objections" meant it wouldn't be integrated immediately because you wouldn't want to do so if there were objections. If TfD is the proper venue for a brand new warning template, I will take it there. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at. If Gracenotes, the author of that, were around, we'd sure be talking about it, as it very clearly needs to be revised. WP:BOLD is a guideline, and WP:UTM is...well...nothing, though really it's an unlabeled information page. While we should and do encourage users to discuss first, nothing at WP:UTM should be construed against WP:BOLD. Indeed, I'm going to set out a proposed revision to that paragraph unless there are any other comments here. But yes, far as I know, there are only two ways to get rid of a template, WP:CSD G7 or WP:TfD, so it'll be one or the other. --Bsherr (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I any event I have taken this to TFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The TfD closed as no consensus and I would like to invite those who recommended to keep but rewrite (User:cymru.lass and User:Bsherr), and anyone else, to offer their input or make changes. I asked the template author to hold off warning any users until the language is acceptable, but he not surprisingly refused. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I've made some changes, consistent with limiting use to the creator of an uncategorized article, which I think is advisable, as it seems overactive to notify those who merely edit an uncategorized article. As always, reversions and input welcome. --Bsherr (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it is inappropriate use of this template to notify an editor of an uncategorized template 3 1/2 years after it was created, especially prolific editors, as Jax 0677 did in this edit. It took me mere seconds to categorize Template:Miriam Makeba myself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Why should the creator of the article be responsible for adding a navigation box you created, especially for an article created over 6 months ago and that you even edited a couple of times? This is not something that editors need to be warned about. This is a collaborative effort, stop wanting to warn others and try helping them. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
With:
If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, and save the page.
Because:
Instructions are better when the steps to be taken are mentioned in the same order as they are to be performed. Iceblock (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Iceblock, I've made the changes, and some other clarifications in the sandbox. Please review/amend. Cabayi (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I have now found out that various templates in Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates/Username also mention the steps in the same order this template did. I got an idea of creating a "unblock-instructions" template for these two sentences, and then the template can be added to Template:Uw-ublock and the others by means of {{{|safesubst:}}}unblock-instructions. Would that be sensible? Iceblock (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Iceblock, It sounds sensible. It would need to be protected to the same degree as its most-protected use before going live. Cabayi (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Uw-brd
I have created {{uw-brd}} as a user advisory template to make sure that an editor's edits and reversions conform to BRD. -- /Alex/21 05:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Uw-talkinarticle
Was going to be WP:BOLD, but would rather discuss first. There is a link to Help:Talk pages, but later in the template there could be a link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Probably linked in one or more of the words in this sentence: "However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article" Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
For {{uw-vandalism1}}: please change Help Desk to "help desk", to conform with sentence case (as displayed on the help desk itself). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I just made some minor edits to this template, but wanted to discuss any more significant changes before implementing them. The template currently has "...If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles)." First, telling editors that their article may be deleted— is this helpful or is it just meant to make them feel threatened? Second, the "probably sooner or later" bit also seems unhelpful: lots of genuinely notable people never get Wikipedia articles written about them, and the reassurance of "sooner or later" feels pointless: instead, we could point out the Requested articles page. Lastly, why are we mentioning "Wikipedians with articles" at all? To the extent that this template is meant to be placed on the talk pages of editors who have come to Wikipedia specifically to write an autobiography, the "Wikipedians with articles" mention serves no purpose. So how about, ""...Autobiographies usually have problems with conflict-of-interest, and are likely to be deleted as promotional. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, you are welcome to add your name to our list of Requested articles." ? A loose necktie (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
mention paid editing disclosure in spam username block templates?
The first two are probably the two most commonly used templates for username blocks, for use in the case of WP:ORGNAME violations. The third is specifically for those representing non-profit organizations. None of them mention paid editing disclosure. Since people creating such accounts are the most likely to be paid editors, it seems like it should be in there somewhere. Any thoughts on how to do so? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Allrighty then, per WP:SILENCE, I just pasted in a line directly from the actual policy, with a link. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I came from Template:Uw-3block, but in my experience this applies to many blocking templates. I don't think the phrase "as you did on" necessarily is the best turn of phrase, particularly when it comes to the quoted template. I believe it would be better if it read something like "you have been blocked for violating the 3-revert rule on X", or "on among other articles X".--Launchballer 16:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the use of as you did on X vs on X to me just on X seems to say that the reason the user was blocked was only for their edit to X. The current wording seems to convey that X isn't necessarily the only page that the person may have been damaging, but just one example of the page. Sakura CarteletTalk 21:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
On civility : I have oftenthought that messages like this are more disruptive and bitey than "FFS will you stop?" - but I don't think that's a widely shared view Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to be derived from a template, so perhaps it can be changed to make it not as bitey? -- Loftyabyss 22:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
That's a tough one, especially for new editors when you don't want to bite them, but you do want to warn them about 3RR as they are probably not aware of it. There is an alternative to Template:Uw-3rr, unsurprisingly called Template:Uw-3rr-alt that's a bit more chatty and yet shorter. Maybe it needs to be better advertised? --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
There's also {{uw-ew}} (which doesn't mention 3rr for some reason) and {{uw-ewsoft}} as well. ansh666 04:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that {{uw-ew}} not mentioning 3rr is intentional; this allows it to be used in cases where somebody who was blocked for repeated reversion has returned from the block and immediately made a single revert to one of the disputed articles, as here. Used in this sense, it doesn't imply that the user had the right to make a fresh set of three reverts with impunity - indeed, it states, in boldfaced text, "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
{{uw-ewsoft}} is wonderful. It starts with the main point, and has a paragraph break between the problem explanation and the consequences warning. The latter part directly starts with the most important information. The template does not use a big red stop sign in a heated situation; instead, it calmly explains something that is unlikely to be intuitive to new users. It explains Wikipedia's discussion process without drowning the user in details. I rarely ever use any other template to warn edit warriors. The only alternative I use, for experienced users, is a very short, neutral, manual message like "Hi, regarding Article, please keep WP:3RR in mind. Thanks ~~~~" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Whatever standard template you transclude, even if you use an automated tool, it's you and you alone that's responsible for your edits. No-one's stopping you from writing a personalised message to the user, using the more obscure alternative templates or making your own template. I'm agreed with Ritchie333 that this is a real civility problem that is very normalised among the community, and causes crippling long-term damage to the site, but I still believe the other kind of civility problem does the same thing, just to experienced editors rather than new ones. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was sudden saw Template:Uw-Violence says in serious case report to law enforcement. Is that real? are they call the cops is this threat get serious? I don’t think they know editors home address and police won’t investigate. Scout MLG (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
See WP:EMERGENCY. Serious threats of violence are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety Team, who can and will contact appropriate authorities if the situation warrants it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Wording of the Uw-disruptive templates
I have a problem with the wording of Template:Uw-disruptive2 and Template:Uw-disruptive3. Instead of focusing on disruptive editing, it seems to focus on edit warring; it has two bullet-point paragraphs about how to handle content disputes. I propose removing those two items so that the template just warns against disruption. (About related templates: Template:Uw-disruptive1 is very mild and general, like most level 1 warnings. Template:Uw-disruptive4 redirects to Template:uw-generic4 which warns about disruptive editing. And for those who want to warn against edit warring, we already have multiple templates for that, as pointed out in the “Too bitey?” discussion above.) Anyone agree with removing the content-dispute language from templates 2 and 3? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I see what you mean; although edit warring is a type of disruptive editing, the Uw-disruptive templates should focus on disruptive editing in general. It might make more sense if one was to compare {{Uw-disruptive3}} with {{Uw-vandalism3}}: both begin with Please stop your disruptive editing., but disruptive3 then goes on about content disputes/edit warring, which is a specific type of disruption, like how vandalism3 goes on about vandalism (another type, but here it's to be expected of course). Also worth noting in my opinion is the similarity between {{Uw-disruptive1}} and {{Uw-vandalism1}}; the disruptive template is like a milder version of the vandalism one with only slightly different wording. Adam9007 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I do think there is value in having separate templates for vandalism and disruptive editing, at least at the advanced levels. They are somewhat different animals, in part having to do with the motivation. Vandalism is DELIBERATE bad editing to harm the encyclopedia, by somebody who knows they are doing it; disruption may have many causes including persistent incompetence, promotion, a desire to RIGHTGREATWRONGS, a combative attitude, etc. But it is not the same as edit warring, and when I use one of those templates, I post it and then immediately delete the irrelevant EW stuff. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN, disruptive1 is almost a subset of vandalism1 assuming good faith, but even vandalism1 seems to assume good faith to an extent (which contradicts our definition of vandalism...). As for the other uw-disruptive templates, should the edit warring text be replaced with anything? Or should we simply use the wording from their vandalism counterparts (but with the word 'disrupt(ive/ion)' instead of 'vandalism/vandalise' of course)? Adam9007 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I would simply remove the stuff about edit warring. For Uw-disruptive2 that would leave
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
For Uw-disruptive3 it would leave
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
Similar to the vandalism pages except doesn't call it vandalism. (And in looking at it more carefully, it should say continued, not continual. I'm tempted to just go change that, it's the wrong word.) -- MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN, Well, that pretty much is using the same wording as the vandalism templates :). And yes, I think that given the context of the warning, 'continual' is the wrong word there (of course continual disruption will result in a block, but the warning is trying to say that you could be blocked if you continue to disrupt despite the warning). Adam9007 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I changed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
RfC: User warning for the changing of other users' posts on talk pages
WITHDRAWN
This isn't going anywhere InvalidOS (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should there be a user warning for the changing of other users' posts on talk pages? InvalidOS (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
– There already are. That is, the standard installation of WP:TWINKLE allows one to do this, (and I assume it could be done manually if one knows the right way to code the template) see [2], it's a specific usecase of {{tpv1}}-{{tpv4}}, so a full suite of four escalating warnings. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
InvalidOS, per Beeble's comment I suggest withdrawing or clarifying the RFC. I'd also like to note that this is especially the kind of issue where hand-written messages generally work better. I'd really suggest addressing the details of the specific case. Just be sure to include a link to WP:Talk page guidelines#EDIT aka WP:TPO. Alsee (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question about titles
What does the "im" in the titles of Uw-vandalism4im, Uw-delete4im, Uw-spam4im etc. stand for? Geolodus (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I know it translates to "only warning" but I'm unsure of the etymology. DonIago (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Immediate? Natureium (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Nah. Too obvious. :p DonIago (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
You're im big trouble? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, my friends have said I'm imcorrigible... DonIago (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
So, no one knows? Geolodus (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd guess immediate (blocking). If you're lucky you might catch Jtdirl who created and surely knows about the original {{test4im}} template. -- zzuuzz(talk) 10:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Geolodus: my apologies, I meant to come back later and supply a more real answer. I strongly suspect it is related to the metatamplate {{imbox}}, which is an image box. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Geolodus: From my research, it seems likely this was never documented, and thus Jtdirl is probably the only one who knows.
Here's my research, some of which zzuuzz beat me to:
However, I didn't go so far as to do a filtered grep for "im"; I simply searched a few of the talk archives around the time {{test4im}} was created for " im", so I might have missed something.
The above seems to disprove Beeblebrox's theory, since {{Imbox}} has only existed since 24 April 2008 and the "-im" warnings aren't image message boxes in any special way that the other warnings aren't anyway. I would also guess "immediate", but it's just a guess. eπi (talk | contribs) 20:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
That's actually a pretty good question now that I think of it, my first thought is that it stands for "immediate" too. I created it upon suggestion, to mirror {{test4im}}. -- Luktalk 10:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
So I just came across this monstrosity and I have to say, it's doing an awful job at serving its purpose as a navigational aide. Snarky remark aside, {{single notice links}} is anything but navigable in its current state. Never mind that it's a horizontal list: there's also the {{tl}} brackets, asymmetrical left-right split, wasted whitespace, and arbitrarily color-coded headers. It also doesn't collapse, which probably can't be all that much desired. Anyways, instead of complaining I think I'll do some tinkering when time permits. Curious to hear your opinions. jdeazy (t • c) 02:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
jdeazy, you have my Support to tinker. I don't think I've ever seen that template before, but I concur with your comments. The spam of brackets are redundant. Making it collapsible sounds like a plus. The unbalanced left-right split would probably work better as a top/bottom split. I suggest the shorter list go on top. When people quit visually-scanning long content it can cause short content at the bottom to perceptually disappear. Alsee (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alsee: how's this instead? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 22:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
jdeazy Hmmmm. It looks good but I was taken aback a bit by the unexpected size. The aligned bullets makes things well organized, but big. I just removed the columns and packed it smaller, assuming no one objects. I'd say it's looking much improved over the original version. Alsee (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alsee: that just looks horrible. You left a left-aligned asterisk-separated horizontal monstrosity. Why not substitute div col for flatlist, and remove list2- and list3style? That would leave you with this:
But I believe using a horizontal list is the root of the issue. So I reverted your changes, added an additional column and collapsed the lists. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I like the smaller version you posted here, but I don't object to the current version. Alsee (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alsee: I'll admit that I personally think the version shown above is more pleasing to eye than the current rendition with columns. However, my primary concern is the template's legibility and the ease with which one can find an accurate template message, which, I think, is best attained through columns instead of the sardines-in-can effect. Recognizing that this may be entirely subjective, of course, I won't oppose if you decide to apply the aforementioned horizontal styling. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 18 May 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn.Retro (talk | contribs) 18:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
– These pages only contain warnings, not general templates; the terms "multi-level" and "single-level" don't even seem relevant outside the context of warnings. Warnings aren't the only type of user talk namespace template messages. eπi (talk | contribs) 18:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC) (edited 18:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC))
Strongest possible meh I don't see anything real that would be accomplished by this change... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: I would like to restructure the headings in the Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and I'm listing this as a first step to understand how this community considered warnings and user talk namespace template messages to be related. It wouldn't make sense to change the headings to be inconsistent with the subpages; thus I'm listing the subpages first to gauge if there are any objections. eπi (talk | contribs) 01:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
"These pages only contain warnings". But that isn't true and the single issue page even contains separate headers for "warnings" and "notices". Unless you consider every notice to be a warning, and I don't think that a very good idea. You say, "Warnings aren't the only type of user talk namespace template messages", so I don't see how this proposal is even self-consistent. What happens to the notices which aren't warnings? -- zzuuzz(talk) 11:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I will however note that it appears the multi-level page contains levels of warnings, though it could probably be argued that the lower-level warnings are more like notices. Additionally, every page on the single-level page is prefixed with uw-, even those that are purpotedly "notices", though your point is taken.
I have some further thoughts about reorganizing, but I will withdraw this request for now, and contemplate the exact details further. I am unsatisfied with the current status quo of these pages, but it seems this suggestion is not quite the correct way forward. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Uw-biog2 edit request
This edit request to Template:Uw-biog2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Doniago, What do you mean this needs consensus? Both templates are listed at TfD. Surely the tag is uncontroversial? It's no different to putting an AfD tag on a protected article. Perhaps I should have been clearer; by 'Merge tag', I meant the TfD merge discussion tag. Adam9007 (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess I'm not sure why you're posting here. Is this just an advisory to ask editors to look at the other discussion? You worded this as an edit request, which suggests you want people to take an action, but with an open discussion at TfD no action should be taken until that discussion has been closed. If you wanted this handled as an uncontroversial merge, then a request here without opening a discussion at TfD would, I think, have gotten the job done, but right now conversation really needs to occur there because TfD is a formal process. You could withdraw the TfD nomination and make it more clear what you're looking for, though? DonIago (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Doniago, The edit request was to put the TfD tag on the page. Twinkle tried to do it automatically, but couldn't as the page is protected. It did manage to put the tag on the other template, and it makes no sense for the tag to be on one page but not the other. Adam9007 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'm reactivating this request as I can't help with that. DonIago (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a template {{Uw-ublock-famous}} which is leading users to scanning their government IDs and send them by email to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. I want to organize a policy discussion around this practice.
I am posting here to ask if there is any precedent of discussing this practice at this talk page. The template talk page redirects to here, but so far as I can see, this is a talk page mostly for template management and not for social issues like checking ID cards. The issue that I want to discuss is Wikipedia's WP:Identity verification process, so I started building out documentation on that page and want to host the discussion there.
Here are my questions for this board -
Can anyone show prior conversation about this template either here or elsewhere?
This page is probably the best place to discuss "template management" as you describe it, including any changes to the wording, consistent with other uw- templates. The actual username policy should probably be discussed at WT:U, which is the governing policy pre-dating the template and where you might find some discussion. Some discussion about the current verification process may belong at OTRS. Any proposals or discussions may also belong at the village pump. I think it would be appropriate to advertise any proposed changes in any of these places, but not to change the redirect on the template talk page (or link to a proposal from the template). -- zzuuzz(talk) 12:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Cleaning up CSD notification list and adding CSD post-deletion notices
There are two parts of this, but they're birds of a feather. The first are the subset of notices found under CSD nominations in the Deletion notifications column of Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Other. The full list is at Template:Speedy deletion notices, but I don't think what is currently listed is representative of the whole. Listing to all four levels of redirects to {{Uw-test1}}, etc., two redirects to {{Db-notability-notice }}, and leading with R2 all seem unhelpful.
Relatedly, I have recently created a suite of post-deletion notices, listed at Template:Speedy deletion deleted. These will soon be added to Twinkle for sysops, so I think it'd be good to list them here as well. Some older ones exist in the CSD deletions area; this would replace those. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 00:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I've gone and done this with a select few. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 16:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
UW-ATBLOCK
There's current a draft here, it's quite confusing as I'm not if its' a normal template that can be used in general, and its only an IP user that has created it.--Mjs1991 (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 13 June 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– It is unclear what "cia" stands for. This is much clearer: The relevant policy is WP:FORUM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: I don't see "cia" templates listed on this page (we have "chat") and unlike "chat", "cia" is not template protected. Since these appear less official and redundant, and that they should have been substituted (it would be easy to check for non-substituted instances), an option could also be to delete them as redundant... —PaleoNeonate – 08:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
June, 2019: "It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving."
Since the "Save" button became "Publish changes", this template's use of the term "save" may confuse some users. Is there an unambiguous way to reword the above sentence and thus avoid any confusion?--Quisqualis (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Uw-multipleIPs
How is Template:Uw-multipleIPs helpful? Is it intended for dynamic IPs or static IPs? Dynamic IPs didn't change IPs to evade a block – changing IPs is automatic for them, and they might not even know what an IP is. Static IPs changed IPs to evade a block. So telling them it won't succeed and threatening another block, is just giving them a laugh. All that does is postpone the time when they will get tired of messing with us. Is there some technical issue I'm missing? Art LaPella (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Dynamic IP addresses often change when the PPP(oE)/DHCP sessions are reset (i.e. power cycling the modem/router or telling it to reconnect). In the case of IPv6 on mobile, the addresses often change within a /64 prefix. On the other hand I can't say that I've used this particular message yet. Using multiple addresses is usually considered like creating sockpuppet accounts and when a page is disrupted by multiple addresses/users, page protection is usually increased... —PaleoNeonate – 05:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I've nearly nominated this template for deletion many times. I think the only chance it has is if the wording were somehow switched around. There is nothing wrong with using multiple IP addresses. In the large majority of cases where this template is used it's not a deliberate choice. However, there is something wrong with doing vandalism (while using multiple addresses). Being warned for using the addresses ("Do not use multiple IP addresses") is completely missing the point. The previous wording, although not perfect, got across the real meaning of the message: "You have repeatedly been warned to stop your vandalism of articles on Wikipedia when you came here using other IPs. Please stop." -- zzuuzz(talk) 08:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my Using multiple addresses is usually considered like creating sockpuppet accounts should have been: Using multiple addresses for block evasion or attempting to evade scrutiny is usually considered like creating sockpuppet accounts indeed. This template is really in the context of vandalism, so I agree that it's strange. One thing that I can think of is when a patroller uses rollback but that it's not sufficient because another similar address also edited just before the new one (and this may even be missed). I would support its deletion, I think. On the other hand, its text used to be different and it seems to have been used at east 10,738 times (substituted, so deletion would not affect existing instances). There still are many links to the template itself though... —PaleoNeonate – 09:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Draft pending submission
Hello, I have submitted a new series of drafts for a new multi-level user warning template and am seeking review from a WP:UW member. The first may be found at Draft:Template:Uw-flag1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, LaundryPizza03, are there examples where this could (have) be(en) useful? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Presumably "my" refers to MySpace, since the original revision of the template links to WP:NOTMYSPACE. I'm not sure that "wh" is a vast improvement, fine as a redirect perhaps, but would {{Uw-webhostblock}} not offer more clarity? PC78 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest that might get confused at some point with {{webhostblock}} which is something completely different and used a fair amount. -- zzuuzz(talk) 23:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, something else relevant to that part of WP policy then, {{Uw-socialmediablock}} perhaps? (Not very concise, but no less so than {{Uw-spamblacklistblock}}.) I'm just going by the existing naming scheme though. PC78 (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I could support that. The current title is so outdated almost anything would be better. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I strongly suggest making a template to warn against adding people or events without their own Wikipedia articles to day of the year articles. This is a very strict rule that prevents the pages from being clogged with non-notable events, and I spend about half my time as a pending changes reviewer undoing such edits. I don't know how to make such templates, so if someone would like to make it, give me instructions on how to make it, or else provide feedback in any way, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I have created a new draft template that is used to remind Wikipedia users that they are blocked for creating, maintaining or restoring hoaxes as this behaviour is forbidden. The draft template is called Draft:Template:Uw-hxblock. Thanks! 122.108.183.105 (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Proposal
Hello. This is Wyatt2049, and I am making a proposal. What I was thinking is that some of the more common template uses should be changed slightly. I think that the Icons should have a slight colour change for some of the templates. I have made a list of that those should be. LIST. I think that this would be a good Idea because this could help disifer different warnings if you have multiple types on your user page. Please let me know about my proposal, and if it is a good Idea. I would be happy to do all of the work to change it, except for template protected, which I cannot edit. I could request an edit for those. Thanks. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I have made a draft. Draft:Template Proposal. It is not yet complete, as I am in school. I will be able to start in an hour. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the added value is here - I get that it distinguishes between the types of warning, but I feel like having lots of colors on the page would be distracting rather than useful, and I don't see people memorizing the meanings of the different colors. More importantly, the blue-yellow-orange-red progression is, at least to me, a normal progression from less to more important warnings (though I suspect that this might be at least partly a cultural thing) creffett (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
New template: uw-usertalk
Hi all, I've created a new user warning template, Template:Uw-usertalk for when people use their talk page for non-talk-page things. It's based on one of User:Drm310's warnings. Feedback welcome and appreciated. creffett (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
double, noun, a duplicate or counterpart; something exactly or closely resembling another.Oppose proposed names. I don't see how "-i" is an improvement since its meaning won't be clear from the template name alone. Should any change be necessary it would be better to use "-impersonate" in full or another synonym such as "-mimic", "-clone", "-fake" etc. PC78 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Could you explain the rationale in your edit summary:
WP:BRD doesn't show "how to reach consensus", but only how to avoid edit warring, as this differs from my interpretation of WP:BRD. Lmatt (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As one example: discussions at WP:DR are better placed to discuss "how to reach consensus". BRD doesn't say anything about how to actually achieve it, like DR or 3O do, it only seeks to prevent disruption by avoiding the rabbit hole of edit-warring, which inhibits progress towards consensus. That said, the burden of proof on added material is on the person who added it; so rather than explaining the rationale for restoring the earlier version, really you should try to elucidate why those words are appropriate and should be added to this warning based on the guideline, and seek support from other editors for this change. Perhaps they will agree with you. Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mathglot I think I understand. So although BRD does show "how to reach consensus" in situations such as edit warring, the wording you removed: "for a guide on how to reach consensus" suggests BRD should be used to reach a consensus when in fact it is only an optional method. Lmatt (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
That's closer to my view (and I speak only for myself), but rather than "an optional method" to reach consensus, I view it as a recommended method [it is a guideline, after all] for avoiding obstacles in the path of reaching consensus by other means (such as DR). That's my two cents. Mathglot (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mathglot Does WP:BRD not state it is an "explanatory supplement" and "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines"? Lmatt (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You're right, it does. It even goes further than that, and says it is not a guideline because it hasn't been "thoroughly vetted by the community." I'm pretty sure it has higher acceptance than an WP:ESSAY, but less than a policy or guideline, I guess, but now we're getting into a gray area I'm not too familiar with. Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 20 September 2019
avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors
Surely the template's wording should more clearly reflect the former? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, eh, I'd consider "strongly discouraged" to be pretty close to "we ask that you not," but if you think worth changing, what new wording would you suggest? creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
number of ways your talk posts get signed
The template {{Uw-tilde}} currently says there are two ways to sign your posts: manually adding tildes or using the signature button.
But isn't this incomplete info? For one thing, I'm pretty sure my talk page messages get automatically signed for me when I'm making edits on my phone. I request someone in the know look into the wording of Template:Uw-tilde to ensure it is up to date and complete, for all platforms. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 26 September 2019
This edit request to Template:Uw3 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Template:Uw4 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Template:Uw4im has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Replace the word "harm" in the default reason with the word "disrupt". The word "disrupt" is more generic than the word "harm", and the purpose of Template:Uw3, Template:Uw4 and Template:Uw4im is to provide a generic base for user warnings of those levels. InvalidOS (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
From a writing perspective, it is awkward to use the word "disrupt" twice in quick succession. From a consensus perspective, the phrasing has apparently used the word "harm" for the entire nine-year life of this template, so you'll need a new consensus to modify that wording. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Ehm? If you or I aren't happy with a wording, User:Jonesey95 we boldly edit it. Only if you get reverted do you need to take it to talk, achieve consensus and so on. We certainly do not need to start a discussion (taking up time of others, delaying the change, etc) for every little change that just might be entirely uncontroversial. CapnZapp (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2019
This edit request to Template:Uw-test1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Regarding {{uw-test1}}: the word practice as used in the template is a noun; the correct verb should be "practise". — RAVENPVFF·talk· 14:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC) — RAVENPVFF·talk· 14:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR. In US English, "practice" is the only acceptable spelling of all parts of speech for this word. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
(applying to {{uw-vandalism1}}
Adding separate documentation would help improve documentation. Monniaszatalk 20:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 04:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 22 October 2019
This edit request to Template:Uw-biog1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. And yes, I did actually look at the templates' code, and I didn't see any unused empty spaces. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
What's the point of that? It's noincluded and has no effect on the template's appearance when used. It merely makes the single line of documentation sit better on the template's own page. Cabayi (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
That space looks fine to me, but I have no problem with another template editor removing it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Jonesey95 and Cabayi, it just looks weird with space in reading mode. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are we missing a rather important warning? Users who repeatedly delete sourced content because they claim it's incorrect. The delete-warnings do not cover it, as these users often add edit summaries (basically claiming they know better than sources). Similarly, even though it is POV-editing, POV does not really cover it either. Given that we have warnings both for adding unsourced material and for using bad sources, wouldn't it make sense to have warnings for deleting good sources based on WP:TRUTH. Jeppiz (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
refspam
Would it be worth to make {{uw-refspam1}} through refspam4im for editors who are spamming references? The {{uw-spam1}} could be used, but instead of linking to WP:EL linking to WP:RS and talking about continued addition of dubious sources being regarded as a form of spam. --Dirk BeetstraTC 12:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Creffett, I did not know that one .. but that does not really cover my case. There are more and more cases of editors placing (likely their) websites as references. Not necessarily 'a small group of researchers'. Some of these are plain 'spam' websites, not even research. So yes, maybe it is worth considering the multi-level set. Dirk BeetstraTC 13:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I suggest changing Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies to Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or verifiability policies, since it isn't always them both. —Biscuit-in-Chief:-)(Talk – Contribs) 15:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@JBW: Regarding Special:Diff/853854806, the previous wording can be found in the Terms of Use as well as WP:PAID. Where does the current wording come from, and should we really attempt to insert personal interpretation into text copied from a "policy with legal considerations"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I've seen the policy interpreted both ways ("paid only counts if you're being paid specifically to do editing" vs "paid counts as long as you're editing about someone who is paying you in some capacity"). I suspect that there's need for a broader discussion about where to draw the line between COI and PAID. creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is that a "personal interpretation"? The terms of use say "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." If I am doing work for which I am paid and which includes editing Wikipedia, then my edits to Wikipedia are being paid for. Is there some other way to interpret the quoted text from the terms of use? On the other hand I can't see how "paid counts as long as you're editing about someone who is paying you in some capacity" can be justified. Being paid by someone for work unrelated to Wikipedia, and also separately and privately editing Wikipedia about that person is not paid editing, though of course it is editing with a conflict of interest. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 14:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
JBW, what I'm thinking about in the latter case (and I might not have clearly articulated what I was thinking) was a COI case a few months back where the president of a for-profit university was editing the page about that school. I recall some disagreement about whether it counted as paid - on the one hand, his job description probably doesn't include editing Wikipedia, on the other, his job is to make the school look good. creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. That is a sort of grey area where one could argue either way, and there could be a case for making the policy on paid editing more specific. However, my personal view is that the modern tendency to try to deal with issues that come up with by making polices ever more and more specific to block any loopholes is a mistake, and it is far better to try to follow the original spirit of Wikipedia, which is that we don't have firm rules. Why is there any need to "draw the line between COI and PAID"? I haven't seen the particular case you are referring to, so I can't specifically comment on it, but in general such a situation is clearly a case of conflict of interest, and can be dealt with accordingly, without wasting time on wikilawyering over whether it is or isn't technically paid editing. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
If there is no other way to interpret the quoted text, there's no need for the additional clarification. If there is, it is a personal interpretation. The addition seems to needlessly complicate the already-complex sentence, and quoting the actual wording of the TOU/policy seems preferable to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Now you are turning my words round to mean something that they didn't say. There is no logical way of taking the terms of use as meaning anything else, but that doesn't prevent people from misunderstanding, and they often do. "Additional clarification" is therefore likely to be helpful. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 13:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I suggest changing the markup from "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time" to "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time" (or similar) since the current version resembles WP:BOLDAVOID. Surely, for those who are used to MoS, the current one just hurts the eyes. — Mike Novikoff 05:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
"Mark at Arcola"
I just made this edit to {{Uw-ublock}} to spell out the "Mark at Arcola" provision of user name policy (that a name such as "{person} at {company}" is acceptable, even preffered). To this end I borrowed and modified language from {{Uw-coi-username}} what was already in place. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks, Creffett. 13:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 17 December 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the template as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
– The content of this template is already using "well-known" instead of "famous" for many years. Likewise Twinkle edit summary when using the template. Now it was suggested to modify the Twinkle "reason" label for this template. But it seems even better to rename the template and make everything consistent. More rationale can be seen here by by Beeblebrox. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Support "Famous" is simply not reflected by long-standing practice, policy, or even the original language of the template itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Rename, probably better to leave the other as a redirect though. --Dirk BeetstraTC 06:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's already expected as the redirect will not fit any deletion criterion. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Support Everyone makes good arguments. The word "famous" doesn't appear once in the template. --LiamUJ (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Support This move is rational and no big deal. StonyBrook (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Always bugged me — we're not interested in famous, we're interested in impersonation. -wellknown seems appropriate, as it's used by the template itself. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 18:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Encourage the newcomers
Template:Uw-bite links to WP:BITE. Should it also link to Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers for some positive advice? I am currently the main author on this essay, so I have a COI; please only make this change if you think it will improve the template. HLHJ (talk)
These warning templates should ideally link to established policies, or at least guidelines, and not essays. If the guideline needs improvement, do feel free to suggest it on the guideline's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion for ALLCAPS template
I have requested this a month and a half ago on WP:RT and Redrose64 redirected me here. That was before my WikiBreak. Thanks Bishonen. I am reposting my original message here as I think this template may still be necessary. Thank you.
I have encountered a few users that write messages in ALL CAPS when they want to put emphasis while I am patrolling. For that, I have used personal messages, but I think there may be a need for templates {{uw-allcaps1}} and {{uw-allcaps2}} that may be necessary. The templates I am proposing may have the wording something like this:
Level 1: "Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}} and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you left a message in ALL CAPS, which is considered shouting. This may not be your intent, but check your caps lock key before you continue editing. If you need to emphasize text, you can use '''Bold text''' or ''Italics text'' or <u>Underlined text</u>. Thank you."
Level 2: "Please refrain from leaving messages in ALL CAPS as it is considered shouting and uncivil. If you need to emphasize text, you can use '''Bold text''' or ''Italics text'' or <u>Underlined text</u>. Thank you."
I think that may be a bit over-specific, and if needed, could be addressed by a single warning template, not a multi-level one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: Okay. So maybe we can just have the level 1 warning message. It may be needed, though, as to prevent posts in ALL CAPS. AwesomeAasim 01:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Awesome Aasim, I personally have not yet encountered a case where pure "all caps" had been the main problem to explain to a user. If I had, I would probably have written a short custom message for the unique case.
I'd guess that users who write in "all caps" are more likely causing more significant disruption in other ways too. If not, it could even be possible to completely ignore the way their messages are written, and respond to their (likely incorrect) arguments instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Proposed rewording of uw-vblock
{{uw-vblock}} currently reads "You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent vandalism." As blocks are preventative not punitive, I propose this should be changed to "You have been blocked temporarily to prevent further vandalism." Any thoughts? — O Still SmallVoice of Clam 15:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, but as this gets used on dynamic IPs, an acknowledgement that the person reading it may not have vandalized anything might be good (can the template detect if it is on a registered-editor talkpage or an IP one?). People get mad when unfairly accused of bad behaviour, but will probably understand being bycatch in a technical measure to prevent vandalism. Also, they may know the other people using their dynamic IP, and so this may exert social pressure against vandals ("Great, some jerk has been vandalizing Wikipedia again and now I can't fix this typo."). HLHJ (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
HLHJ: The template already reads "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked" when only anonymous editors from an IP address are blocked. In this regard, there is no need for a change.
Voice of Clam, I had the same thought, and it applies to all the blocking templates. "For" could be replaced by "to prevent further" in almost all cases, and when I manually personalize a block template, I often do change this wording too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I've updated {{uw-vblock}} - I haven't looked at the wording of others, but I may do so in the next few days. — O Still SmallVoice of Clam 17:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Voice of Clam, thanks, it looks wonderful. I just noticed the change positively. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. If used on an IP, with a null reason=, it says: "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of Duration to prevent further vandalism, as done at Targeted page. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked." The bit about "your" talk page seems a bit odd; "this block includes user talk pages such as this one"? Thanks, BTW, ~ ToBeFree, I'd missed that. HLHJ (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Regarding talk page access revocation, this is not about the whole user talk namespace. When a user is blocked, they can still edit their own talk page, and no others. This access should usually only be used to create an unblock request, or to ask the blocking administrator for clarification. Administrators rarely revoke this last method of on-Wikipedia appeal, unless it has been misused. Revoking a user's talk page access is an action done after blocking almost all cases. The template's "In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked" variant is, due to the existence of {{uw-tparevoked}}, only needed in extremely rare cases where talk page access is revoked immediately at the time of the original block.
This does not make the proposed text unsuitable, but the reason for proposing a change might have been a misinterpretation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh right, that's fine then; in context of appeal procedures, it makes sense to focus on the IP's talk page. Sorry, I know nothing about blocking, and overlooked that parameter. Apologies for twice wasting your time, ~ ToBeFree, and thank you for your patience. HLHJ (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
No worries, HLHJ, no worries. Not wasted; spent practising a foreign language and spreading knowledge. That's what Wikipedia is about, after all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I am requesting that the text "ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards" be amended to "... relevant noticeboards" on both of these warning templates. 'Noticeboards' is un-spaced in nearly every other instance on the wiki; see for example Wikipedia:Noticeboards and its list of noticeboards. These are the only two Uw-series templates that mention them as far as I can tell. Thanks, –Erakura(talk) 00:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Currently this template directs users to the helpdesk, but as far as I can tell, the users who will see this template are almost always new, in which case direction to the teahouse would be better. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome templates, like Template:Welcome, which are regularly used in combination with user warnings for new users who have not been previously welcomed, already direct new users to the Teahouse. I would prefer to see the user warning template left with the more generic link to the help desk. --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
blank edit requests
I see this nearly every day, a user files an edit request on a talk page but don't enter any actual proposed change. They are often replied to at the page in question, but just as often the request is simply removed. Seems like we could have a template to drop on their talk page explaining how to properly make edit requests, but if there is one I'm not seeing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, interesting, Special:AbuseFilter/987 is supposed to be warning people about empty edit requests to prevent them from happening in the first place. No objection to slapping together a warning, but it also might be worth changing that filter to disallow...will bring it up on EF/N. creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
So the filter is catching people doing that, but according to the logs, about one editor a day ignores the warning and publishes anyway. Opened a discussion here about changing the filter from warn to disallow. creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The template {{uw-coi}} seems to add the user to the category Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices and to include a comment that claims that the category should be removed if the user is blocked or the message remains for a while. It also seems to try to limit the category inclusion to 5 months via #ifexpr with timestamp subtraction. However, it doesn't seem to work. The "Null edit" section at WP:Purge claims that "All other purge methods do not apply to categorisation and "what links here" changes from template edits, but a null edit does". I tested things on a few pages in that category, and it seems like the only method that makes the category disappear is a null edit. What should be done? The finest solutions I can imagine is this declined bot or this now-broken bot or a new bot. Edible Melon (talk·contribs·block user) 07:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the templates {{uw-coi-username}} and {{uw-username}} (and other such templates) can be rewritten so that category removal only takes a null edit, possibly extracting a template for timestamp comparison. Edible Melon (talk·contribs·block user) 01:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Noting its creation here — it does seem to be filling a gap — but I had a couple comments on the template itself (cc Coffee and ST47). In particular, I think it would be good to include some brief, additional text at the end as right now the sysop's signature is erroneously placed at the end of the third bullet. Moreover, I think the language could be tightened a bit: there is a lot of repetition — WP:SPAM and WP:TOU are both used twice — and it reads a bit muddled to me. I made some changes, but wanted open a broader discussion. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 12:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Feel absolutely free to make any changes you think are improvements. I just went back to make sure there is a distinction between advertising and the ToU vio. Not quite sure though how to add more at the end to make the signature not sign after the 3rd bullet, but I understand that from a point of esthetics. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Possible trolls?
Is there a warning for potential/blatant trolls and WP:NOTHERE editors who are wasting other editors' time? I've come across two lately. Wrote a custom warning for one, used a somewhat inappropriate disruptive-editing template for the other. HLHJ (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
"Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username contains the suffix "-bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts. However, you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87"."
Emphasis mine. This appears to be the result of including a template that should be more flexible to prevent this sentence from appearing, or the result of including the wrong template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Jarring indeed! I think {{uw-adminublock}} is the only other template explicitly relying on verbiage from {{uw-ublock}}, and it suffers from the same issue. The text was only just added last December by DESiegel. I'll just move it inside the reason parameter's default text, should take care of it. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 17:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from using racial epithets while editing Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Please stop using Wikipedia to spread racial epithets and hate speech. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia needs to stay neutral and must not be used to spread racist doctrines.
Template:Uw-patrolled has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bsherr (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
A 10 fireplane (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
wikimedia.org if the account is locked? (Maybe we need a new parameter? I am not familiar with enwiki procedures so just posting here.) — regards, Revi 10:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Done -- /Alex/21 13:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:TM#Uw-nonfree wording (repost). -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 04:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done per Cabayi above. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)