Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

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

Proposed "vandal→vandal-fighter" template[edit]

I combined the principles that

  • most vandals are bored
  • when I'm bored, sometimes I revert vandalism

and came up with the idea of converting vandals to fight the good fight. I came up with a message suitable for use on, say, a user who has clearly demonstrated bad faith but no particular persistence or repulsiveness, such as with this edit. Here it is:

Come to the light side, we have cookies
You know, watching for and reverting vandalism (like I'm doing) seems to be just as entertaining as actually perpetrating [[vandalism (like you're doing), and we white hats don't have to worry about that annoying getting-blocked thing. Plus, we sleep better at night. Maybe you should give it a try. FourViolas (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Before starting to use it, I wanted to see if anyone had any objections, maybe per WP:ATWV or WP:BEAN, or improvements. Let me know! FourViolas (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Like the thought FourViolas, but I'd rather get these often juvenile people doing something constructive before trusting them with counter-vandalism work. CV patrollers need to identify "vandalism" accurately and to master procedure, and they need to stay diplomatic, especially when untoward messages arrive on their talk pages. I sometimes point people at the suggested tasks on the WP:Community portal page: Noyster (talk), 10:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What if the username in not User:Uw-coi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandKitty256 (talkcontribs) 16:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I like the sentiment. I'd be interested to know how it'd be implemented though. How would it fit in with warning steps 1, 2, 3 and then 4 (final warning)? Would it precede all of them? Or would you use it instead of warning template 1?
Just a few thoughts. At present, whilst I like what you've come up with, using anti-vandal tools means I probably (personally) wouldn't get much chance to try it out and see how it works. Orphan Wiki 16:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Uw-unsourced2 misstates actual policy and usually amounts to biting newbies. Can we narrow it?[edit]

Template:Uw-unsourced2 claims that you should not add things to Wikipedia without reliable sources. Well, of course that is the policy for WP:BLP, but, generally speaking, it’s okay to add things that are true, even if they aren’t sourced yet. Someone else can, generally speaking, find citations later. And the vast majority of material on Wikipedia was added without initially having a citation. Quoting WP:V:

All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

But uw-unsourced2 badly misstates this, and the way it’s used seems likely to discourage new contributors. Can we perhaps narrow the wording so that it only applies to biographies of living people? Or, alternatively, narrow the wording to cases where the material’s verifiability seems dubious?

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose WP:V applies to everything. It's not "okay to add things that are true, even if they aren’t sourced yet" and we should not be changing wording to imply that it is. New contributors need to learn that adding sourcing is at least as important as adding new content. --NeilN talk to me 23:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If WP:V applies to everything (a position I support), why would you want to let this template continue to contradict WP:V? And right now Wikipedia's main problem is not "New contributors need to learn…" but rather "We are failing at getting new contributors so badly that the total number of active editors is in decline." Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
And the answer to that is not to lower our standards. New editors are in decline because we require higher quality contributions and all the low hanging fruit has been picked. --NeilN talk to me 16:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Along with "verifiable" mentioned by NeilN WP:BURDEN also applies. Finding citations later is not the way to go as that allows all manner of unproductive items to creep into an article. MarnetteD|Talk 23:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course WP:BURDEN applies, but this template's text contradicts it; the bold text in BURDEN, "material challenged or likely to be challenged", is what I am proposing that the template should reflect. Finding citations later is, empirically, the way that the majority of productive items got into Wikipedia articles, too. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the standard answer to Kragen's concerns is: "Look, I'm here and I'm challenging it." This kind of sophistry is very hard to counter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Where's the study that backs your empirical claims, please? --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with NeilN here, there's nothing wrong with the current wording in relation to WP:V. I've never heard this claim that most content got added to Wikipedia unsourced and then sources were attached to the content (which would be problematic for all kinds of reasons), but since the template currently reflects policy I don't agree with changing it. - Aoidh (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree As a new editor (actually old old editor who has returned) I am trying to write a page on a writer who is prominent but no page at all!. I'm busy and it would be easier to write down, for instance, a list of her articles and then go back as I have time and add in references. I write professional papers and generally find that it flows better to read enough to get an overall sense, then write, then reference. I DO agree with the policy, but it is limiting, especially for things that would not likely be challenged, such as the titles of her articles. I was there in the wild days when people were reverting articles and it is fascinating to see the evolution of these policies. 2SEETW 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2SEETW (talkcontribs)
Your user sandbox is the appropriate venue for you to write and get the sense of your writings, before adding references and citations and moving it to the mainspace. We have 4,850,109 articles and no deadline. Indeed, publishing unverifiable information and pseudo-information is worse than having no information at all. Bellerophon talk to me 23:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A great deal of time was invested on making these templates brief and to the point, because people don't read long messages. Also, the current wording of this template does not misrepresent policy at all. It is a message designed to be delivered to a user talk page after another editor has either reverted a change made by the target user or otherwise taken umbrage with it; making the material in question ipso facto "challenged or likely to be challenged". Also, selective referencing of editor retention issues to try and add weight to one's point is unhelpful to the discussion at hand, being a fallacious argument to emotion that in this case amounts to irrelevant handwaving. Bellerophon talk to me 23:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Per Bellerophon, the template is fine. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 February 2015[edit]


Change [[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] to [[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon|link=]]


Change [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] to [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon|link=]]


Change [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] to [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon|link=]]

Unlinking images from vandalism templates is a good idea. Just like ClueBot NG has done. QEDKTC 13:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@QEDK: These templates use a CC-BY-SA image, so the link to the file page is needed to give attribution to the image creator. Where is ClueBot NG using an unlinked image? Is it using this image, or some other image that is in the public domain? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope, ClueBot NG uses these. Same to same. --QEDKTC 14:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
All templates of ClueBot NG have unlinked images and also many user warning templates other than the ones I just put in a edit request for. --QEDKTC 14:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Then I think ClueBot NG's templates and the others need to be changed. Use of a CC-BY-SA image must be attributed. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
So, what are you going to do? --QEDKTC 15:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. OK, I've marked this request X mark.svg Not done and have edited User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal1, User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal2 and User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal4 so that they link to their file pages. That should provoke some discussion... (The image used by User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal3 is public domain). -- John of Reading (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine, should do it. :) --QEDKTC 14:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Make a "not linkedin/notblog" type warning?[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if it would be a good idea to create a warning that specifically went into the whole "WP:NOTLINKEDIN" stuff. I've run into a lot of people who are creating pages thinking that this is a database akin to LinkedIn or CrunchBase and as such, doesn't entirely fall under the COI warning criteria. We get a lot of people also thinking that it's kind of like Facebook or other social media sites or blogs. My reason for saying this is because some of the editors will argue one or more of the following: that they do exist, that they are only using their userpage, and/or that this wasn't meant to be promotional because it was just supposed to be a page for the company/organization/etc. They could still be given a COI warning, but I think that at some level it would be good to have a friendly warning that explained more about how Wikipedia isn't a database/webhost/etc since not everyone is really here to do promotion and get confused because they didn't think that they were being promotional. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • So maybe a warning along the lines of "not a profile page"? I want it to be sort of encompass all of this while also making sure that they understand that it's not a database. I've typed out a lot of messages to people who thought that it was like LinkedIn/CrunchBase, so a brief and friendly warning message would definitely be a big help. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The real answer to this is pre-publicity - correcting people's awareness of what Wikipedia is and isn't before they think of creating "their page" - but failing this, a well-drafted notice with clear guidance on when to use it would fill a gap: Noyster (talk), 08:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Tokyogirl79: Doesn't {{uw-socialnetwork}} already do this? PhantomTech (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@PhantomTech: {{uw-socialnetwork}} talks about Wikipedia not being "a place to socialize" but doesn't touch on WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Ahecht (TALK
) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest something like: "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site, and Wikipedia pages, incuding user pages, should not be used as directory entries or for promotion or advertising. This means that autobiographical content on your user page should be limited to information relevant to building and using a high-quality encyclopedia such as languages you know, fields you have knowledge in, and disclosing conflicts of interest (please see WP:UPYES for further details). Thank you." --Ahecht (TALK
) 19:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ahecht, Noyster, Tokyogirl79: I've made a template at User:PhantomTech/Templates/Uw-blog, let me know what you think and I'll move it into the template namespace. PhantomTech (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for non-response (I've been offline). I think this would be a very useful addition to our armoury of templates. I'd change the middle bit to remove "autobiography", as we already have {{Uw-autobiography}}, and spell out very plainly what we're asking them not to do:
Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a webhost or a place for blogging or promotion. So please do not try to use Wikipedia to promote yourself or your family, band, product, or company. Our articles have to be about someone or something "notable" - please see WP:N for more about what we mean by this. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time, even if it's on your user page. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia.Thank you.
: Noyster (talk), 12:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Noyster: Updated based on your suggestion, let me know what you think. PhantomTech (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, hope to see it listed soon on Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. I expect to be using it quite frequently. Trouble is Wikipedia predates the whole social media scene; and how are people going to grasp that it isn't just another site on which to set up "my page" or "our page", if we don't adjust the publicity to take account of this?: Noyster (talk), 16:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll move it to the template namespace now. User pages have an edit notice that briefly mentions promotional pages, I think it's somewhat new so hopefully that will help. If not I have an idea I'll be working on in my free time. PhantomTech (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)