Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Template:Uw-catimprove

FYI, I have just created Template:Uw-catimprove. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 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. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk 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. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk 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. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk 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. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "My Talk"

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 fireplane ^{Imform me} 15:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Talking about Template:Uw-blank1

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 fireplane ^{Imform 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.

Thank you for your explanation A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 21:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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 fireplane ^{Imform 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 fireplane ^{Imform 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)

@Thewolfchild:Awesome thanks for the tip A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 18:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

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)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Uw-redcat

I have just created Template:Uw-redcat, and added it to Template:Single notice links.

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)

Template:Uw-unsourced1 and VisualEditor

The template uw-unsourced1 currently links to Help:Referencing for beginners, which includes long paragraphs about manual referencing and only includes a small and difficult-to-find section about referencing with VisualEditor. Wikipedia currently guides new users to VisualEditor, so I would like to suggest that we instead link to the more helpful Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor or Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources#VisualEditor. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Uw-navbox

I just created Template:Uw-navbox, since Mirror Master does not have such navbox. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:52, 7 March 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. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2019

Replace:

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)