Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Subst paramter

Can this be added to the icon template call? Rich Farmbrough, 12:27 15 October 2007 (GMT).

Usage documentation

Is there a page that discusses which template to use for various cases, such as {{uw-test1}} vs {{uw-vandalism1}}, and when are the 4im ones appropriate? Should there be a link to that page either on the documentation pages for the individual templates and/or on the category page?

I think the header of the section Multi-level templates sums it up pretty well, although I'd say 4im templates should be used only for users with a previous history of disruption or where there is strong (but not compelling) evidence of sockpuppetry. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New Year's Resolution on nofollow

Folks, the tags for uw-spam reading "Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings" are, to the best of my knowledge, the last time that, as a Webmaster, I had to research, are technically incorrect, because various search engines ignore the "nofollow" tags.

It may be in the best of all possible causes -- to thwart spammers -- but Wikipedia should not misrepresent on an official level.

That seasoned spammers are also likely to know the mechanics of nofollow tags ... well ... I'd rather stick with the argument that it's technically incorrect that external links don't alter ratings. Sincerely, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Would you say that most search engines ignore nofollow tags, or are such search engines in the minority? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Define "most". The handful of major search engines respect them, and the long tail of many search engines is of extremely limited relevance in terms of proportion of all search queries made. Rd232 ^talk 20:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature

We have templates for Adding signatures to article space, and for Not signing posts. There is also a template for Not using edit summary; but is there something for those who are good people an all three counts, but who regularly attempt to sign the edit summary - or is this a case of Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries? See this IP user's contributions. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a common enough problem to justify a template of its own. I don't think {{uw-wrongsummary}} would be correctly used in this instance, as that implies that the user's edit summaries were misrepresenting the nature of the edits. Therefore, just leave the IP a personal message about the issue if the problem persists. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

uw-npov2,3,4

I templated someone with uw-npov2 when they were removing coverage of a point of view, and I wound up removing the template because it's so ill fitting. Template:uw-npov2 and higher seem to assume that the NPOV violation was the addition of original and unencyclopedic commentary. We already have Template:uw-nor2 et al for original research. You all think anyone will be too shocked if we rewrite the uw-npov series to be more generic? Gigs (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the uw-delete series? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would just make another set of warnings. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 02:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Advertising is strongly discouraged?

uw-advert1 says "Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged" - shouldn't this be something like "not permitted"? (The welcomespam template says "Wikipedia does not allow advertising".) Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer something along the lines of 'Fuck off, you spammy little oik', myself, but there's that whole 'no personal attacks' thing. HalfShadow 20:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I edited the template; It now reads as follows:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

-RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Much better. "strongly discouraged" is a bit of an understatement. We don't allow people to use WP for advertising period. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Move to "Uw-removevand"

I'm considering moving the template {{uw-removevandalism}} to the name pointed out in the header so it isn't too long. Are there any objections? I'll accept any objections, if they at least generate consensus. Thanks! Schfifty3 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to create redirect --Redrose64 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My edit to Template:Uw-voablock

I added some changes to the {{uw-voablock}} page, which included fixing up grammar and moving things around to make it look better. Baseball1015 (talk · contribs), who made a trio of edits about half an hour ago, reverted my last edit without explaining why; the latter two is not relevant to this topic. Am I using incorrect grammar, or am I violating the Manual of Style guidelines? I notified him about the revert afterwards. Schfifty3 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I agree; "You have been blocked" means "you-the-person"; "your account has been blocked" suggests "OK, let's start up another one." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I once saw a blocked sockpuppet say something along the lines of "But but but I didn't vandalize with THIS account! What'd I do wrong?" The new wording would seem to encourage such an attitude. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus...that's pathetic. Perhaps saying something along the lines of "this and any other accounts you may own have been terminated."? -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 01:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Most vandals don't strike me as very smart or creative. I don't think there should be any suggestion that it's even technically possible to have more than one account, unless we know the user has already figured that out. It may seem obvious to me and you, but to someone who thinks that adding "GAY!!!!!" to twenty articles is a demonstration of their supreme wittiness, it may not be so clear. Wikipedia (by necessity of its privacy policy) has rather limited defenses against sockpuppetry. Users who are determined to disrupt Wikipedia will create many accounts whether we like it or not, and will stop reading block notices after a while. For casual "drive by" vandals, I think it's best to leave the functioning of Wikipedia as spooky and mysterious as possible, in the hope that they will get bored and go bother someone else before they figure out how to evade the block. Hence, confusing "you" and "your account", while technically incorrect, is actually a good thing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that "you have" is much less WP:BEANSy than "your account." — Kralizec! (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On those grounds, I suggest wording the template to be as imposing as possible. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Get lost, jerk. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because you are a vandal. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block, but after what you've done, we're not likely to believe you.

Hm. Maybe too harsh. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm usually the one who gets into issues for using their teeth. Perhaps this message?

Your access to Wikipedia has been terminated. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because you have abused the Wikipedia policy by making only unconstructive edits. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block, but you should be aware the evidence is not in your favor.

-RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As per the WP:ILLEGIT subsection of the official policy on Sock puppetry, "policies apply per person, not per account." With this in mind —as well as the WP:BEANSy nature of "your account" instead of "you"— I have gone ahead and changed the template back to its prior phrasing. Given the fact that {{uw-voablock}} is a heavily used template that is, by its very nature, substituted, we should probably discuss and achieve consensus on changes prior to implementing them. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Any attempt by this editor to fix a template will likely be reckless instead of bold, so I offer two suggestions:

1. Add a top-line header
2. Add ~~~~

Both of these would be very helpful. Thank you.--otherlleft 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that I was redirected to this talk from Template talk:uw-username so I didn't bother putting the name of the template. Since redirects in talk only are uncommon (and the notice is rather small), how about a nice, friendly edit notice asking folks to include the name of the template they're commenting upon?--otherlleft 17:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

I keep seeing people use warning templates templates that allow them to insert a link to the dif of the edit in question. Is that a template on Wikipedia or something in Twinkle or some other Wiki editting program? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)