Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace

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

Template-protected edit request on 3 June 2015[edit]

The code under "Why can't I edit Wikipedia?" in Template:Uw-spamublock should be changed from

[[Special:MyContributions|Your account's edits]] and/or [[Special:MyPage|username]]

to

[[Special:Contributions/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}|Your account's edits]] and/or [[User:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}|username]]

so that if someone else clicks on the link, it will go to the blocked user's links instead of the clicker's links. Gparyani (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Then the links won't display properly when it's used as a block message (as is frequently done). —Cryptic 00:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cryptic: Then some code should be added that detects whether this is being placed on a user talk page, and then only do this. Gparyani (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cryptic and Gparyani: Such as [[Special:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk|Contributions/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|MyContributions}}|Your account's edits]] and/or [[{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk|User:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|Special:MyPage}}|username]]? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Yes, precisely. Gparyani (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - page me if it breaks anywhere and I'll revert. Ahecht, why aren't you a template editor yet? Alakzi (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
No dice. —Cryptic 01:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Uw-spamublock-parserfunctions-as-block-msg.png
Is there any way I can test changes ...without being blocked? I think it'll work if subst: is changed to safesubst:. Alakzi (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Going to need to be blocked to test it definitevely; Mediawiki's always been fussy about what it displays in interface messages. Safesubst is worth a try, and I'll experiment, but I suspect it's the parserfunctions that are breaking it. —Cryptic 02:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite certain that it's caused by subst:; this slightly odd behaviour of subst: is why {{Substcheck}} works. Alakzi (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. (I used to understand this stuff, honest.) On the plus side, with safesubst in all four locations, it works properly as a block message and when not substed, but is still displaying the Special:MyContributions and Special:MyPage links when substed on a user talk page. User:Cryptic/sandbox if you want to experiment some more; I don't mind inflating my block log. —Cryptic 02:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. :-) Alakzi (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Doesn't appear to be working...see Special:BlockList and go to the talk page of a user recently blocked for this reason. Gparyani (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've disabled the template because I assume User:Alakzi is watching this page now. If you would like to set up an alternative account for testing purposes I will happily block it for you :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You'll also notice that the blocked users' talk page is not placed in Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names. It works when I do it on me talk page, so I'm guessing the template is expanded prior to its insertion on their talk page, either due to the blocking interface or a script the blocking admin's been using. Alakzi (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: I don't know; you may want to ask at WP:VPT, where WMF employees sometimes respond. Gparyani (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

uw-test3[edit]

{{uw-test3}} was nominated for deletion or merging yesterday; the nomination is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 6#Template:Uw-test3. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Result of the above was to keep {{uw-test3}}. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Add existing warning templates regarding plot summary bloat[edit]

I (primarily) designed and have been using the Template:uw-plotsum1 and (rarely) Template:uw-plotsum2 user warning templates for quite some time in situations where editors added significant amounts of material to plot summaries, beyond that delineated at WP:FILMPLOT and the other relevant areas.

After asking for other editors' opinions at WT:FILM, I'd like to request that these be added to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.

There is some question as to whether the Level 2 version is really necessary; I'm content either way.

For anyone wondering why there's no level 3 or 4 on these, the theory has been that anyone who needed that level of warning on this type of behavior was, at that point, either edit-warring or at least engaging in disruptive editing, for which there are already warning templates available.

Thanks for your assistance and input! DonIago (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Added as nobody seemed to object after 5 days. DonIago (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Required user notification not done warning?[edit]

Is there a template for warning a user when a required user notification was not done? example - User:Patient 32 not notified. If not, there should be (and Twinkle should have it). I tried a couple search methods and came up empty. I think most noticeboards require notifying a user when they/their edits are the subject.--Elvey(tc) 16:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I would hope that that doesn't come up often enough to require a template, and perhaps in such cases a more personal touch is a preferable approach in any case. That said, I wouldn't necessarily opposte a gently worded warning template. If a user is making a habit of not notifying people then there's probably a larger issue. DonIago (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
See {{SD warn-needed}}. I used to use this regularly. Since most taggers now use Twinkle or another script that always notifies, I almost never need it any more. DES (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to language of all uw-speedy templates[edit]

I propose changing the language of these templates to address not only the creator of the article, but also editors who have removed the speedy deletion tag with no explanation given. For example, something along the lines of this:

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself, or without providing a valid reason for the removal. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.

Of course I'm open to suggestions on a more succinct wording, but this would avoid having to use some other template in these cases (such as removal of maintenance templates).-War wizard90 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I would object. Article creators are specifiically forbidden to remove speedy deletion templates. Any other editor may do so, and while an explanation is surely good practice, it is not required. I plave this template with some frequencey. If it is changed so that it is no longer specific to article creators, I will have to create soem other template that is so specific, because tht is the message I want to send. DES (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Since when is an unexplained removal of a speedy deletion template okay? These are commonly reverted or rollbacked, many times the article creator simply logs out and removes the speedy deletion tag in an attempt to circumvent the process. IMHO an unexplained removal of a speedy deletion tag should be treated exactly the same as an article creator removing it. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the policy is Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. if you see that a speedy tag has been removed and you still think the article should be deleted, then you send it to WP:AfD - an irreversible move - that's the way to draw out any valid reasons to keep the article: Noyster (talk), 07:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
A policy I believe that needs to be revised to say anyone may contest by removing the tag and providing a reason for doing so. However, since that is not what the policy currently states, I will instead pursue a new template specific for editors removing speedy deletion notices without providing an edit summary, or reasoning by some manner. I don't think it's too much to ask a contesting editor to provide a reasoning for doing so, and mostly I'm concerned about page creators logging out and removing the speedy deletion tag. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:uw-move4[edit]

Isn't "maliciously" a rather strong word? I propose to change it to "controversially". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's a level 4...at that point the editor in question has presumably received at least one prior warning for the same problem and is essentially repeating their mistake despite the warning. If it was a lower-level warning I might agree, but in this case I think "malicious" is probably fairly justified, though I'll defer to the opinions of other editors on this. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

uw-aoablock moved to uw-pablock[edit]

I've boldly moved {{uw-aoablock}} (attack-only account block) to {{uw-pablock}} (personal attacks block), as there's no fitting template for personal attacks allowing for temporary blocks and to anonymous users (I wouldn't consider {{uw-hblock}} to be the same). I hope this was a good move, as I can only imagine blocking accounts/IPs for personal attacks is more common than blocking an "attack-only account". MusikAnimal talk 20:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

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)