Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

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

Requested move 13 June 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move all (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

– It is unclear what "cia" stands for. This is much clearer: The relevant policy is WP:FORUM. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: I don't see "cia" templates listed on this page (we have "chat") and unlike "chat", "cia" is not template protected. Since these appear less official and redundant, and that they should have been substituted (it would be easy to check for non-substituted instances), an option could also be to delete them as redundant... —PaleoNeonate – 08:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


There's current a draft here, it's quite confusing as I'm not if its' a normal template that can be used in general, and its only an IP user that has created it.--Mjs1991 (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

June, 2019: "It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving."[edit]

Since the "Save" button became "Publish changes", this template's use of the term "save" may confuse some users. Is there an unambiguous way to reword the above sentence and thus avoid any confusion?--Quisqualis (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


How is Template:Uw-multipleIPs helpful? Is it intended for dynamic IPs or static IPs? Dynamic IPs didn't change IPs to evade a block – changing IPs is automatic for them, and they might not even know what an IP is. Static IPs changed IPs to evade a block. So telling them it won't succeed and threatening another block, is just giving them a laugh. All that does is postpone the time when they will get tired of messing with us. Is there some technical issue I'm missing? Art LaPella (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic IP addresses often change when the PPP(oE)/DHCP sessions are reset (i.e. power cycling the modem/router or telling it to reconnect). In the case of IPv6 on mobile, the addresses often change within a /64 prefix. On the other hand I can't say that I've used this particular message yet. Using multiple addresses is usually considered like creating sockpuppet accounts and when a page is disrupted by multiple addresses/users, page protection is usually increased... —PaleoNeonate – 05:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I've nearly nominated this template for deletion many times. I think the only chance it has is if the wording were somehow switched around. There is nothing wrong with using multiple IP addresses. In the large majority of cases where this template is used it's not a deliberate choice. However, there is something wrong with doing vandalism (while using multiple addresses). Being warned for using the addresses ("Do not use multiple IP addresses") is completely missing the point. The previous wording, although not perfect, got across the real meaning of the message: "You have repeatedly been warned to stop your vandalism of articles on Wikipedia when you came here using other IPs. Please stop." -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my Using multiple addresses is usually considered like creating sockpuppet accounts should have been: Using multiple addresses for block evasion or attempting to evade scrutiny is usually considered like creating sockpuppet accounts indeed. This template is really in the context of vandalism, so I agree that it's strange. One thing that I can think of is when a patroller uses rollback but that it's not sufficient because another similar address also edited just before the new one (and this may even be missed). I would support its deletion, I think. On the other hand, its text used to be different and it seems to have been used at east 10,738 times (substituted, so deletion would not affect existing instances). There still are many links to the template itself though... —PaleoNeonate – 09:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2019[edit]

Template:Uw-myblockTemplate:Uw:whblock or Template:Uw-snblock or Template:Uw-socialmediablock. What does "my" exactly mean? Let's try to be more clear. (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 06:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Presumably "my" refers to MySpace, since the original revision of the template links to WP:NOTMYSPACE. I'm not sure that "wh" is a vast improvement, fine as a redirect perhaps, but would {{Uw-webhostblock}} not offer more clarity? PC78 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'd suggest that might get confused at some point with {{webhostblock}} which is something completely different and used a fair amount. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm, something else relevant to that part of WP policy then, {{Uw-socialmediablock}} perhaps? (Not very concise, but no less so than {{Uw-spamblacklistblock}}.) I'm just going by the existing naming scheme though. PC78 (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
    I could support that. The current title is so outdated almost anything would be better. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft pending submission[edit]

Hello, I have submitted a new series of drafts for a new multi-level user warning template and am seeking review from a WP:UW member. The first may be found at Draft:Template:Uw-flag1. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, LaundryPizza03, are there examples where this could (have) be(en) useful? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There is an ANI about a user account who has only ever added flags in breach of MOS:ICON. Another user was banned from adding flags or icons to infoboxes in 2013, shortly before retiring after being blocked for violating his topic ban. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'm completely neutral about this then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

New template: uw-spambotblock[edit]

I made a template about spambots because it's available on Meta. See Draft:Template:Uw-spambotblock> (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)