Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

Uw-copyright-new

Does anyone else think that saying Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing in {{uw-copyright-new}} is a bit BITEy? This is supposed to be the "gentler" message for people who don't know they're doing anything wrong. There's always {{uw-copyright}} for people who should know better. We don't even allude to blocking in {{uw-v1}}, {{uw-blp2}}, {{uw-spam2}}, {{uw-npa2}}, etc. All of those are more often than not given to editors who likely do know they're up to no good. But the public's perception of copyright is something like "it's on the web so it's public domain". Education is critical, but do we have to jump to threats on the first offense? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions either way. I don't interpret that as a threat, but rather as a cautionary note that isn't emphasized in any way, and I think copyvios are serious enough (I'd say they're more serious than the other warnings cited) that maybe mentioning the potential for being blocked should be included in the first warning. That said, if other editors disagree, I won't make a fight over it. DonIago (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a copyright violation is very serious for Wikipedia and needs a warning that conveys what will happen if one keeps introducing such material. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing for Template:Uw-spam1

Well, I just learned that I had used this template incorrectly because I was unaware that Template:Uw-elinbody existed. However, I was still wondering if something should be added to this template to inform users of WP:NOELBODY since editors who add inappropriate external links also frequently insert them into the body of an article. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing of Uw-ew

The template currently reads:

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

This wording is too weak—we should change it too:

Do not edit war even if you are right.

This is what's right. Even if you are right in a content dispute and will be proven right in the end, you should not edit war. The usual exceptions apply, of course, like reverting vandalism and enforcing arbitration provisions. Air on White (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Another tweak on Template:uw-spamublock

I suggested this a ways back. In this version, I've numbered the required steps, in the probably vain hope that users will understand at least a tiny bit more often. I'd like to implement it; any objections? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is going to sound vaguely pedantic, but I wonder whether the wording should be modified to make it more clear that a user must follow all of the steps rather than just picking the one they most prefer. DonIago (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Not pedantic at all; that's exactly the problem I'm trying to address. I'd hoped my previous change would improve things in that regard (you must..and...and...and...) but there's still room for improvement. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You could just make it, "you must include all of the following". I think that would satisfy my concern. DonIago (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll try just that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I did both. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Spamblock redirects

• {{spamblock}} => {{Uw-soablock}}
• {{uw-spamblock}} => {{Uw-sblock}}

Recently I discovered that "spamblock" and "uw-spamblock" have different targets. I'd like to file an RFD, asking that they both be targeted to the same place, but I don't want to mess up everyone who uses one or the other, and as a substitution of a redirect, I can't figure out how to track usage of the redirects. Can anyone help me know if both are used significantly, or if one is used more widely than the other? I initially asked at WP:AN, since we admins are the main ones using block templates, but someone there reminded me to ask people here too. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Spam blocking warning templates jlwoodwa (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Possibility for excluding appealing instructions on block templates?

I noticed that most (if not all) of the block templates included an instruction for the blocked user to appeal, with no provision to exclude it from the template when adding to the user's talk page. Since the possibility for appeals to be accepted are very low (especially so with vandals), would it be possible to have an option to exclude such message in order to discourage them from doing so?

- NotCory (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Have you considered that we care about not improperly applying sanctions, and so resolving the smaller number of false positives is clearly worth the entire process? This is obviously just the plain communication that's necessary to a robust and honest process. It is comparatively rare for an appeal to be initiated, and it usually does not require much extra work if it's clearly going to be denied. Remsense诉 18:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)