Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

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

Adding a "harassment directed to X" to Uw-harass[edit]

Hi, I am proposing to add an "as you did at x to user" in the templates uw-harass 1 through 4/4im. This will clearly tell the user who harassed others who was the victim. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Foobar to UBX, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Foobar to UBX.

That can't be done because the warnings then would need 3 parameters, on Wikipedia user warnings have only 2 parameters. Adding an extra parameter could potentially break the way Twinkle posts these warnings. You may however notify users at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle of this change. --TL22 (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I would oppose on WP:BEANS grounds, anyway. All this would do is focus attention on the harassment victim, and increase the likelihood of sneaky vengeful actions against that party.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

" may..." needs to be " might..." (because of its conditional clause).[edit]

As for all templates, I have noticed that all templates of levels 3 and 5 use a conditional clause which says "If you [do this again], you may be blocked from editing.". I feel that it is incorrect because these sentences are conditional, so we need to use the past tense form of might instead, rather than may. This in a conditional clause "would" (not will) actually be more correct if we had done that upon agreeing this. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is similar to legal language where possible (but not guaranteed) penalties are set. E.g. "Persons who commit the crime of XYZ may be imprisoned for a term not to exceed..." etc. A quick online search of several dictionaries each indicate that the word "may" is sometimes used to indicate possibility, and the word "might" is given as a synonym for this usage. In other words, I'm not sure this is needed, but I'm neutral to the idea.  Etamni | ✉  06:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Etamni. Neither usage is wrong, and there are other contextually synonymous constructions ("might be", "could be", etc.). I oppose changing this, because "may" is the most concise possible way to say it, and it's adequate. There is nothing ambiguous about the construction (though there can be for some other uses of "may": "You may laugh" means both "it is permissible for you to laugh" and "you could end up laughing").  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

AfC warning template[edit]

I am recommending with the blessing of a couple other people here that a warning template be created for people who resubmit articles for creation multiple times without improvement. The issue of re-submission creates a even more chaotic backlog than already exists. Please let me know of any way I can help. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If they've already ignored the warnings right next to the "Resubmit" button, they're not likely to pay attention to a template message. I've had better results leaving a short personalized note and, in the worst cases, add |small=yes to the {{AFC submission|d}} template to hide the resubmit button to remove temptation. --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


Please see WP:VP/Pr in the "template:uw-english" section; I've proposed that it be either deprecated or greatly reformatted. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-English and burden of translation[edit]

This template needs to get the point across that machine translation is available (maybe even link directly to Google Translate or something) and that the burden of doing the translation is on the non-English speaker, not on all of the site's English speakers. Right now this template has kind of a "get off" tone to it, and this is unproductive. We should be helping users understand how to participate, not telling them they can't.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Google translate is literally worse than nothing. It would be much better to preserve the foreign text so that a human fluent in the language can translate it than replace it with the garbled ambiguous mess left behind by machine translation (this isn't just my opinion, it's codified at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION). --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:MACHINETRANSLATION is about translating articles. Machine translations (I mentioned Google's because it's familiar not because I think it's superior) are generally good enough to get the point across in talk page posts.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't divide discussions. This is being discussed at WP:VP/Pr as indicated above. No need to double post here.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Block messages for anon editors[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Ambiguous_phrasing. Why are we encouraging blocked editors to essentially sock? Example: "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit" --NeilN talk to me 16:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed. That message directly contradicts our blocking policy, which has always been understood to mean that the block is on the person behind the edits, regardless of what identity they use. This needs to be rectified. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also agree, we should reword the template when the anon=yes parameter is passed to make it clear the offending user is not allowed to edit, account or not (at least until the block expires?). I think the wording should still be made clear that uninvolved registered users can continue to edit. MusikAnimal talk 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    To clarify my point, the block message should not read "You have been blocked for..." as this is reserved for accounts, or for when you as the admin have established the IP as static and used by a single user. In the latter case, you should perform a hard block ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address") which when using Twinkle the anon=yes parameter will be omitted. If we are performing a soft block the template wording should not imply otherwise. Obviously the idea is to let uninvolved editors who have accounts know that they can continue to edit. This could even be done like we do with the warnings, where there is italicized text below the template that would read something like "If this is shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in". Also, mind you with default options account creation will be disabled for up to 24 hours when blocking IPs, as a measure to prevent block evasion. MusikAnimal talk 18:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Can I bring up a different but related concern? I see {{ uw-ublock }} on talk pages and one of the recommendations offered to blocked editors is to create a new account with a different, appropriate username. I can't locate a diff right now but I've seen at least one editor with this notice create a new account and then get accused of block evasion because their previous account was blocked. Because it was a new editor, they aren't going to complain, they will just stop editing. I would think that admins would recognize when it is a username block so that new accounts, which are suggested, aren't mistaken for socks or for block evasion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Who was doing the accusing? If I'm looking at a block evasion accusation I always check what the original block was for. If it was a soft username block then I tell the accuser the new account is kosher. If it was for username+editing, then I look to see if the new account has the same type of edits. --NeilN talk to me 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, NeilN, I think that action is what most admins would do. If I see it again though, I'll bring it up with either the admin who imposed the block or bring it to your attention. I remember only noticing it because the instructions in the template directly tell the editor that they should create a new account which is unusual advice to give a blocked editor. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: The softblock username block messages all contain similar instructions to create a new account. --NeilN talk to me 23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
...because the default assumption is that they created the account not knowing the policy, and they are not being disruptive. If they are then some other type of block (and message) is obviously required. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed I came here explicitly because of {{uw-ewblock}} and was surprised to find that language being used: it's basically a welcome mat to sock and isn't at all reflective of the various flags being used in blocking scenarios. Templates used for anon blocks where the implication is that the user can freely edit if they have an account can be counted on one hand (e.g., {{schoolblock}}, {{anonblock}}, and in rare instances {{uw-vblock}}). While it's true most of our blocks of IPs are anon-only by default, we typically don't explicitly advertise the fact. --slakrtalk / 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    It's still unclear to me what we're trying to change. When you say "we don't typically advertise" that it's anon-only, I'm lead to believe that that's simply because the old Twinkle Warn module didn't use the anon=yes parameter. When I built the Twinkle block module, I passed in this param to the block templates for anon-only blocks, as it appears that is how the templates were designed and intended to be used. Obviously, it was not well thought out that the If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit wording could have an adverse effect. So the question remains, are we okay with just removing that bit and keeping the "Anonymous users have been blocked" (as opposed to "You have been blocked")? MusikAnimal talk 16:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential addition of a {{uw-recreatedcsd}} template[edit]

It might be good if we had a {{uw-recreatedcsd}} or similar template, to warn a user for a copy-paste recreation of a previously CSD'd article. It happens a fair deal, and when it does generally needs to be dealt with fast. It would help increase awareness among new contributors that when an article is CSD'd, it's gone for a reason, and just recreating the same content is unacceptable. Thoughts? | Naypta opened his mouth at 19:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Naypta, We already have {{uw-create1}} thru {{uw-create4}}. How would your proposed {{uw-recreatedcsd}} differ, except for specifically citing WP:CSD? DES (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Those templates simply say "you've done something wrong in the article". What I would propose the text for {{uw-recreatedcsd1}} to read, for instance, would be something like this:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for trying to improve the world's largest encyclopaedia. I hope it was done in good faith. However, I noticed that you've been recreating content that's been previously subject to a parameter goes here - CSD or PROD or XFD . Articles that are deleted will always have a deletion reason visible in a red box on the old article page (if CSD parameter specified "and a deletion code you can look up at this page") . It's fine to recreate an article if you've made significant improvements to it that mean the deletion criteria no longer apply, but recreating the same content will result in redeletion. Thanks.
What do you think? | Naypta opened his mouth at 04:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Naypta, that might be useful, and I don't suppose it could hurt. I would remove the third sentence: "I hope it was done in good faith." as this could be seen as sarcastic or as an indirect way of suggesting bad faith. I would add a suggestion to contact the deleting admin, which is always a good idea. Is this going to be part of a 4-template series, or a single issue template? If a series, the later ones should probably mention the option of asking for permission to recreate at WP:DRV. (If a single issue, it should perhaps be mentioned here.) If you are going to include prods, note that anyone can ask for a prod to be undeleted at any time at WP:REFUND, and unless it was a BLPPROD or would have qualified for speedy deletion, it will normally be undeleted pretty much automatically. On the other hand, after an XfD it is generally better to create a draft and ask at DRV. The template might be simpler and clearer if it ONLY handled CSD deletions. For one thing, there is no policy or guideline against recreating an article deleted by PROD, and no good reason to warn anyone who does so. On the other hand, after an XfD a new article by the same name may well be tagged for G4 speedy based on the name alone. The cases are sufficiently different that I think having "one template to rule them all" is probably a bad idea. Do others have any views on the matter? DES (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Way too much jargon for new users. Don't expect them to know (or care) what CSD or PROD or XFD mean. Just say "recreated content that was previously deleted". --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Ahecht.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)