Wikipedia talk:Notification

Narrowness

Notification is not just something that happens in outright disputes; adding such verbiage to this essay makes it overly narrow. Is it less appropriate to notify when there is no attempt to get someone else "into hot water"? (which is itself an unnecessarily POV statement) Unnecessary qualifiers dilute the basic message: no one is going to do anything until the person in question has given their input, so you might as well do the notification yourself. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to explain how an edit that contracts the scope of the language is in service of expanding its reach, your stated goal.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Overly specific language and examples detract from the general applicability. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion on this. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I continue to disagree, but I support bringing in some more eyes.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

→ (via WP:3O) There is really not much to dig through here; the present dispute centers on this partial revert, yes?

The phrasing of the nutshell and the colloquial reference to hot water are neither ideal, but no big deal for a new essay under active development. I definitely concur with the opening statement over at the VP - we seem to expect this already, go ahead and codify it. There is nothing here in reference to the See also change, so I hope you will forgive me if I do not look up the standards in WP as opposed to article space.

I think the main disagreement is that the hot water sentence both clarifies that the paragraph is explicitly not limited to AN/I, WQA, &c., but also omits friendlier discussions where notification might still be desired. This essay can (and in my opinion should) also encourage friendly notifications. Consider for example:

• Editor A is active at a large article but not its associated spinouts. Editor B who is active at a spinout wishes to cite A's expressed position, but wishes to ensure that there is no misinterpretation.
• In posting an RfA statement, a candidate makes reference to an old dispute as an example of their dispute resolution skills or to detail how they could have handled the situation better.
• Here I was notified that my name came up during a sockpuppet investigation. I was only peripherally involved as an editor active on the relevant articles and the case outcome could not affect me, but I still appreciated the note.

Some clarification that venue is immaterial would be fine, though slightly redundant. I think that writing this essay to cover all communications rather than simply disputes would be best. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, based on that, I've by-and-large replaced the disputed text but augmented with an additional note about friendly notifications. I don't accept that colloquialisms as broadly-understood as "being in hot water" are problematic. More obscure references, yes - but widespread (and in any event not difficult to puzzle out) metaphors are fine. We are writing for the reader of average intellect, not the dullard. Among the things "Wikipedia is not" is "in the children's section." Regarding the "nutshell": how's "if you discuss another user's actions, it's always good courtesy (and is often required) that you tell them about it"?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"hot water"

Any time any editor takes any action with the sole or primary intent of getting another user in "hot water", that editor is acting in a disruptive and sanctionable manner.

Wikipedia is encyclopedia. Editors are encouraged to use dispute resolution processes, at whatever level, to improve the encyclopedia. There are no punitive blocks, since "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", and "in wikt:hot water" explicitly references trouble and implies impending punishment.

Thus, if we are to reference hot water, the relevant part of the essay must then read "If you are going to take any public action with an intent to get another user in hot water... don't". Jclemens (talk)

No, no, no. After your edit, the section demands that "notification should accompany any public action you take, whether it is on an administrator's noticeboard, an article talk page, an administrator's talk page, etc." That is ludicrously overbroad. Anything anywhere? By that standard, I was obliged to post a note on your talk page when I reverted your edit a few moments ago, and I will become obligated to post a note on your talk page in a few moments when I submit this comment on the talk page. Both were public actions that I took, so you version requires notification.

If that edit stood, it would either paralyze the encyclopædia if taken seriously, or, more likely, marginalize the essay, because no one takes essays seriously when their content is absurd.

So think before you edit. You don't like the "hot water" language. Well, the third opinion you requested did not support your position, and I think it's fine. If you want to remove it, propose better language - preferably here on the talk page - that has a similarly confining effect without being ugly and ungainly. And do try to keep in mind that feigned incomprehension (see your first and second paragraphs above) is (or at least was) explicitly given as a WP:CIV violation.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Auto-notification?

Is there some means of auto-notifying those who've worked on an article of a proposed major change to it? Bot, perhaps? LCS check (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Why their talk page?

Is linking to their userpage insufficient? WP:MENTION says that this should notify them. —SamB (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Very few new editors click on links here

I just discovered I have been erroneously using this signature

Ottawahitech (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

for some time now, when I meant to use

Ottawahitech (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

but no one told me I was using the wrong link and when I check the stats for this page I see little evidence that too many have clicked my ping.

Thanks in advance for any comments, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me