Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 12: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Fix Linter errors. More needed. |
m Fixed Lint errors on this page (obsolete tags, misnested/stripped tags) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 141:
== Optional welcome ==
There are a few kinds of messages, such as conflict of interest warnings, that are rarely used alone. For example, I often have to deliver such a warning after tagging a page for speedy deletion, which, if done using TW, also ensures that the user receives a welcome message. Thus, the "welcome" part of {{tl|uw-coi}} is often redundant. I think such templates should have a <code>welcome=no</code> option, or alternatively, we could create a second class of templates without such messages. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <
[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <
: If you are referring to the first line of [[Template:uw-coi]] 'Welcome to Wikipedia.' Then I agree that could be replaced with 'Hello' or 'Hello <nowiki>{{BASEPAGENAME}}</nowiki>. In terms of Twinkle posting welcome messages at the same time as other warnings, that would need to be discussed at [[WT:TWINKLE|Twinkle talk]]. [[User:Pol430|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''Pol430'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 13:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
::I've edited it as you suggested — that seems easier than messing about with Twinkle. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <
::: Thanks, I've just subst-ed the basepagename param [[User:Pol430|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''Pol430'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 11:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
== "Thank you" ==
To my eyes, the "Thank you" that tails many of the user warnings is borderline passive-aggressive. For one, it assumes that the user agrees with the message and will heed it (presumably what they're being thanked for.) For another, it heightens the impression that the user is being bureaucratically "processed" via a one-way communication. I would replace many or all uses of this with something that encourages interaction: for example, I usually end custom notifications with "Let me know if you have any questions, <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ". [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <
: The 'Thank You' is an optional param (in most templates) and can be replaced with additional text (see template docs). I suppose Thank You was chosen because it seemed to be the most standardised ending for standardised templates. If you issue the template via Twinkle the 'Thank You' param is still apparent even if you add additional text (see [[User talk:Pol430/Sandbox|here]]). I don't think it practical to change the ending of every uw-* template. Perhaps the good people at Twinkle can come up with a solution for, optionally, not including the 'Thank You' param when issuing a template via Twinkle. [[User:Pol430|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''Pol430'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 12:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
::Hmm, why wouldn't it be practical? If there are no objections, I'd like to start working on this. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <
::: Well, are you proposing to do it for just single issue notices? Or all uw-* templates? I don't think there are many single issue warnings that end with thank you (I haven't checked). The multi level templates generally end in thank you for level 1 and level 2, whilst level 3 and 4 just end... I have no objections to "Let me know if you have any questions, <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" replacing "Thank you" on single issue notices. I think single issue warnings should just end with a sig, and the multi templates seem fine as the are (the endings at least). In terms of practicality [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Uw-&namespace=10 this is the complete list of all uw- templates], note there are 3 pages. [[User:Pol430|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''Pol430'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 12:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::::The ones I'm looking at are {{tl|uw-username}} and {{tl|uw-coi}}, which I use with some regularity. It may be that "Thank you" is appropriate for some templates, and for many, e.g., 3rd and 4th level warnings, we shouldn't use either. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <
:::::<s>It looks like {{tl|Documentation}} would need to be changed too, since it makes reference to "Thank you" as the default text. Actually, that should be removed from the documentation in any case, since it's used on many templates that don't have the "Thank you" option. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <
:::::Actually it was {{tl|Templatesnotice}}, and the problem is that some templates don't make use of its <code>nothankyou=yes</code> parameter. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <
:::::: Yeah, some of the standardised templates are more standardised than others, apparently... Anyhow, I have no objections to the changes you suggest. [[User:Pol430|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''Pol430'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 180:
As a community, we've been discussing how to make the site more welcoming to newcomers, and I think part of that may be making templated messages seem less cold and machine-like. With that in mind, I recommend changing the word "reverting" to "undoing" in Template:uw-selfrevert. While "revert" is a fairly common English word, it is a bit formal and somewhat smacks of Wikipedia jargon. "Undoing" is more likely to be understood easily and seems less pretentious. Thoughts? [[User:Kansan|Kansan]] ([[User talk:Kansan|talk]]) 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
:Sounds reasonable to me. I don't really like the use of 'experiment' either, but I'm not sure what would be a good alternative. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <
::While I personally prefer 'experiment,' maybe we could use 'test' instead? — [[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 12:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
::: 'Reverting' is collective term whilst an 'undo' is a specific action on Wikipedia (see [[Help:Reverting]]). Templates should avoid confusing users who may not know any better; Therefore, I feel we should continue to disambiguate the two actions. [[User:Pol430|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''Pol430'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 22:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 216:
:{{txl|notyours}}. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 20:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
::That was deleted last year. The current one has the somewhat unintuitive name {{tlx|Uw-tpv1}}. <
== Template:s/wnote appears to no longer be maintained. ==
Line 264:
::On the last point, I figured it out, and so I've moved these to {{txl|uw-harass1}}, {{txl|uw-harass2}}, {{txl|uw-harass3}}, and {{txl|uw-harass4}}, and also created {{txl|uw-harass4im}}. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 05:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Good idea on the pagemoves and the renaming! I think I'm going to tweak the wording on {{tlx|uw-harass1}} to bring it a little more in line with the other level one warnings (i.e., by specifically saying one of the user's recent edits contained harrassing content, providing a link to the user's contributions, a link to the welcome page and possibly a link to relevant policy). <small>— Preceding <span style="color:#0645AD;">''signed''</span> comment added by [[User:Cymru.lass|Cymru.lass]] ([[User talk:Cymru.lass|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cymru.lass|contribs]]) </small> 15:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Also, I'm going to create {{tlx|uw-harrass1}}, etc., redirects for people {{diff|diff=prev|oldid=428262481|label=like me}} who can't spell "harass"
::::I updated {{tlx|uw-harass4im}} and {{tlx|uw-harass4}} using the {{tlx|uw4im}} and {{tlx|uw4}} templates to bring them fully in line with the other uw4 and uw4im templates. I have to log off for now, but when I get back I'll work on making the article parameter not show up if left empty for levels 1, 2 and 3. Cheers! <small>— Preceding <span style="color:#0645AD;">''signed''</span> comment added by [[User:Cymru.lass|Cymru.lass]] ([[User talk:Cymru.lass|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cymru.lass|contribs]]) </small> 17:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
== Functionality that would allow diffs ==
Line 271:
Let's say [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=416121022 this edit] to [[User:Cymru.lass|my userpage]] was vandalism. The syntax for warning the editor with a diff would be {{tlxs|uw-vandalism1/sandbox|2=User:Cymru.lass|3=diff=416121022}}. This would give:
<div style="text-align: center;">[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of [[Special:Contributions/Template messages|your recent edits]], such as the {{diff|diff=prev|oldid=416121022|label=one you made}} to [[:User:Cymru.lass]], did not appear to be constructive and has been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --></
Line 281:
::*Sometimes, users will vandalise multiple times in a row without getting a warning. When it isn't bad enough to merit a 4im and just merits a level one warning (because the user is new, etc.), having a diff linked to the most recent of the first little batch of vandalism so editors giving future warnings can easily tell for which vandalising edits the user has been warned and for which s/he hasn't. <small>(That wasn't unintelligible at all...)</small>
::Also, I think having a diff would be useful for warning new users that have more than one or two edits, showing them exactly what they did that was deemed vandalism or inappropriate. This would help them learn how things work at Wikipedia by giving them concrete examples of what isn't appropriate (going through a huge policy page like [[WP:Vandalism]] or [[WP:Reliable sources]] can be a bit daunting, and being able to look at a specific instance of violation of that policy would give them a better starting point. <small>— Preceding <span style="color:#0645AD;">''signed''</span> comment added by [[User:Cymru.lass|Cymru.lass]] ([[User talk:Cymru.lass|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cymru.lass|contribs]]) </small> 17:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::I just thought of another instance of where it would be useful: Some users who have had their edits reverted or who have been warned for NPA violations, etc. Having a link to a specific diff helps people (especially ones who do a lot of vandalism patrol) refresh their memories in order to be able to respond to the editor. It's often really hard to connect a specific editor with the edit one reverted when one is doing vandalism patrol (or maybe it's just me that's incredibly forgetful...
::::How will one go about making it quick and easy to get the correct diff? I don't want to go digging around for a revision ID. Also, hold the talkback template - I have this page watchlisted, and have for a long time. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 23:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::Well, if one is doing the reverting manually, one can lookat the diff for the edit about to be reverted and simply copy-paste the number after &diff= in the diff's URL.
Line 320:
Thanks. [[User:Nick Levinson|Nick Levinson]] ([[User talk:Nick Levinson|talk]]) 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
:Many template parameters break if a URL is included and you can see that if you try the same code but remove the URL it works, so including the URL was the culprit. A common fix is to use "1=" in the parameter, which does work here, i.e., the following fixes the problem:
::<small><code><nowiki>{{subst:Uw-username|</nowiki><
:Cheers.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Line 348:
== [[Template:uw-ew]] ==
I just created {{tlx|uw-ew}} to complement {{tlx|uw-3rr}}. Personally, I have always been a little dissatisfied with how that template emphasizes [[WP:3RR|3RR]] in particular more than the edit warring policy in general; I often find myself in situations where it is appropriate to give someone a warning about edit-warring behavior even though they are not necessarily in danger of breaching 3rr, and in those cases {{tlx|uw-3rr}} is often more a distraction than anything else--people read it and, rather than dealing with the issue, just respond "but I haven't broken 3RR". So anyway, I just threw together {{tlx|uw-ew}} as a very similar template only without a warning about 3rr in particular. If there is any way it can be improved feel free to play with it. <b class="IPA">[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|r<
:Thanks. I have often found that the standard edit-warring warning overemphasises 3RR, so that users tend to think it means that it's OK to edit was as long as they stop short of 3RR. That is not a reasonable reading of the message, but it is a very common one. Maybe the new template will help. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 10:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
== Ayn Rand missing from uw-sanctions template ==
Line 371:
*Please update the doc page accordingly. I tried to remove the parameter from the documentation but it's only transcluded from some standard page. So maybe the template should have a documetation of its own now. [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|talk]]) 20:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
*I don't know if this has been implemented yet but if not, it should be. Good idea and well reasoned. [[User:Doomgaze|<span style="color:red;">doom</span><span style="color:black;">gaze</span>]] [[User talk:Doomgaze|<span style="color:green;">(talk)</span>]] 19:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's been implemented. I've updated the documentation. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;
== Little single-issue notice for people who edit talk page archives ==
Line 391:
:You raise a good point. We probably should separate the two templates. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 18:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
A proposal relating to this issue has been made at [[Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption]]. <
== Notice about 'tone'? ==
Line 458:
Where can I find joke edit warnings with text such as "The joke is getting old"? [[User:Thomas|Thomas]] ([[User talk:Thomas|talk]]) 20:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
:You are probably looking for [[Template:Uw-joke1]]. –[[User:CWenger|CWenger]] ([[User talk:CWenger|<
== uw mos 4 ==
Line 737:
So, I think you both know that [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven]] and I have recently been doing some A/B testing on warning templates, and this seems like the perfect opportunity to check in with you about where we want to go from here. To keep the momentum of the project going, we'd like to create a centralized discussion/documentation space where we can share our results and get feedback on next steps and new template designs. It would be great if we could work with Wikiproject UW on the English WP side of things (we'd also like to try these tests on other language wikis) – what do you think about us creating a "User warnings testing" task force? Would that make sense as a subset of WP:UW? –[[User:Maryana (WMF)|Maryana (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Maryana (WMF)|talk]]) 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, just to add to this: I was also hoping that we could use a subpage of WP:UW to keep track of the templates we're testing, and include documentation about how the testing works etc. <
::The UW wikiproject has largely gone inactive. I think most of us felt the work was essentially done and any continuing discussion and tweaking could be done here. However, I for one would be interested to see centralized and detailed documentation of the testing you have been doing.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Line 743:
:::It's a shame it's gone inactive. Considering that there are huge initiatives right now to recruit new editors and articles from non native English speakers, I feel that many of our templates are still too bitey, TLDR, and beyond their comprehension. The WMF is currently doing some great work on new user reception and retention, and I think Steve has made some very valid suggestions. We also need to bring some cosmopolitan editors into template development. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 03:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::::I've started a documentation page at [[WP:UWTEST]]. There's also some stuff [[:m:Template A/B testing|on Meta]]. I'm watching the talk page if you have any questions. :) <
== Block notice removal warning? ==
Line 916:
== Uw-attack ==
I don't think {{tl|Uw-attack}} should end with "Thank you". It looks patronising and insincere. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;
:Eh, it's borderline. They pretty much all end "thank you". It starts coming across as a little sarcastic around {{tl|uw-upv}}, but any overly-civil message can be taken sarcastically when it's posted in response to bad behavior, and the alternative is to sound curt. If you want to ensure it's not taken a way it isn't intended though, we could always change it to this:
Line 937:
== IMDB ==
If a user is continuously adding [[Internet Movie Database|ImDb]] content to articles, which is by policy not allowed in Wikipedia, which warning should I use? <
:Assuming you're not talking about [[WP:IMDB|linking to IMDB]] but rather using IMDB as a source, there isn't really a suitable template for that, but you could perhaps leave a brief message on the user's talk page explaining that IMDB is not a reliable source, citing [[WP:IMDB/RS]]. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 14:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, thats what I meant. Thanks a lot. <
== A Minor Question ==
Line 975:
{{od|:::::}} In interest of consensus building: I don't see that the phrase "Your test worked" is bitey or patronising. In the case of an apparent test edit it seems entirely appropriate to highlight it as such. [[User:Pol430|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''Pol430'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 10:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
:I support the wording ''"You have edited a page on Wikipedia"'' as being the most informative, least presumptuous, least jargon-y, and least open to misinterpretation. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;
:: That would render the current template: "You have edited a page on Wikipedia, and it has been reverted or removed."—something of a mixed signal? Additionally, that would remove any specific reference to test editing from the template. You could, of course, reword the template to accommodate the new phrase, although it is likely that this would lengthen template, making it less concise. TBH I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-test1&oldid=462130799 this revision] is perfectly acceptable; but fail to see that the original text was in any way bitey. [[User:Pol430|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''Pol430'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 11:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
:::The rest of the template would read something like "...for one reason or another, your edit didn't appear to improve the page, and was reverted or removed. If you disagree, or have a question, feel free to ask on my talk page. If you'd like to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia, please see our [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]]. To make experimental edits, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thanks."
:::I personally don't see the value in making the template more concise. For many new editors, this will be their first interaction with another Wikipedian; should we not go out of our way to try to make it a good one? <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;
::::If the wording "your test worked" doesn't apply, then uw-test1 doesn't apply, and another template would probably be better instead. I don't see it as being too concise, because only a very specific type of edit would, in my opinion, warrant this template. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: That's more or less what I was trying to say—perhaps badly... [[User:Pol430|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''Pol430'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::For the record, I don't think this template is BITEy; the problem is that "test" is interpretive and jargony. Calling the template "test" is fine — but ''telling'' users that their edit was a "test" is not helpful, in my opinion. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;
::::::I don't necessarily disagree, if it was a test edit, then they know it was. How about something like this?
Line 987:
::::::I'm sure that exact wording would be objected to by someone, but it was my attempt at saying "your test worked" without actually saying it. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, this would be a good replacement. I would just change "further" to "with editing" to avoid implying that the first edit was an experiment. I like that your version explicitly says the edit was successful, since this is sometimes a point of confusion for new users who have their edits reverted. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;
::::::::Yep, looks like a suitable replacement to me [[User:Pol430|<span style="color:#00008B;">'''Pol430'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 20:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}I went ahead and changed [[template:uw-test1|uw-test1]] and tested it to make sure the formatting was correct. Everything looks correct, but additional eyes on it would be appreciated. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 20:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,026:
Last time I raised issues about unexplained changes to this template, the result was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-coi&action=historysubmit&diff=465707151&oldid=465694315 flatly reverted] because I and another editor hadn't thought to look up a discussion at [[WP:COI]]. I [[Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Eyes|raised the same remarks there]] but they've been ignored. If anyone interested in warning templates wants to take a look, it seems the discussion is better had where the [[WP:COI]] regulars can see it. Thanks. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:We can [[WP:UWTEST|A/B test]] the two different versions if there's really argument about it, but based on past test results, I would strongly recommend the new, shorter version be used. Also, communication in user talk templates tends to be more effective if you don't use strong directive language (e.g. you have to comply with this policy, you must go read this thing). <
== Adding to this template ==
Line 1,117:
:BTW, if you want to hear from a number of editors, you might use {{tlx|rfc|proj}} instead of {{tlx|help me}}. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>[[User:DoriSmith|Dori]] ☾[[User talk:DoriSmith|Talk]] ⁘ [[Special:Contributions/DoriSmith|Contribs]]☽</span> 02:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:: Reasonable statement, however, the template does mention content to cover all of what you specified. The objective of adding references as a mention is because it appears to be the third most common target of removals, therefore, it should be stated as an example. '''By the way, the pages I have created for the sandbox should be moved into the Template: space.''' I could not do so due to technical restrictions. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/75.53.218.81|75.53.218.81]] ([[User talk:75.53.218.81|talk]]) 18:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:::We could just say "Please do not remove ''anything'' from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason". Seems like a valid statement. And it covers... anything. '''<
::::Reasonable. We could refer to "content", and perhaps that will be all. Thanks. <small>(On another computer)</small> [[Special:Contributions/69.155.136.134|69.155.136.134]] ([[User talk:69.155.136.134|talk]]) 22:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't believe it would be incredibly reasonable to say "Please do not remove ''anything'' from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason". Edit summaries are encouraged; however, they are not required. The only time that a reason is "required" (not by a rule but by de facto editing standards) is when a removal of information is contentious. Vandalism reversions don't require a reason.<samp> </samp>[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']] [[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Vesey|<small>Review me!</small>]] 06:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,243:
This template is adding an extra space before a signature when using Twinkle so that it signs like this:
[[User:Saedon|<
I took a look at the code but I'm not sure how to fix this. [[User:Saedon|<
:First could specify which template you mean. And secondly isn't possible, that the extra space is added by Twinkle? [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust, B.Ed.]] [[User talk:Armbrust|<sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Armbrust|<sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0</sub>]] 12:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
::Based on the contribs preceding opening this thread, I believe Saedon was referring to [[:Template:uw-ewsoft]]. I tried it and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SudoGhost/Sandboxes/PrimarySandbox&oldid=498820896 it did the same for me]. I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-ewsoft&diff=498821411&oldid=498576533 tightened up the spacing] in the template [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SudoGhost/Sandboxes/PrimarySandbox&oldid=498821468 and it seemed to fix the issue]. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 12:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes exactly. Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't on the talk page of that template. Thanks for fixing :) [[User:Saedon|<
== Proposing changes to the most common level 1 warnings ==
Hey everyone, I've started an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings|open request for comment]] on the topic of the level 1 user warnings. Over at the [[WP:UWTEST|testing subgroup]] of WikiProject user warnings, we've completed about six months of [[A/B testing]], and want to start a conversation about whether we make any changes based on the test results. Everyone interested is highly encouraged to add their 2 cents! Thanks, <
== "Deity" uw-lang? ==
Line 1,272:
== Concerning Uw-protect ==
Hi. I was just directed to the existance of this template for the very first time, despite my being here almost 8 years, and I would like to say that while it's a sad reflection on the state of affairs we find ourselves in, I find it welcome that we have something like this. Could I enquire with you as to whether this is a single issue warning, or whether it is something like a uw-*-im template, as in an immediate cessation of the activity concerned? <span style="border: 1px solid red;">[[User_talk:BarkingFish|<
:According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-protect&action=history the template's history] it's a fairly new one. It's in the [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Single-level templates#Single issue warnings|single issue warnings]] section, but I'm not 100% sure what you're asking about the cessation of activity. Given the template's subject matter, I'd imagine continued behavior that necessitated the use of the template would probably result in an immediate [[WP:ANI]] discussion being opened. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
== Messages for new-page creators ==
Line 1,289:
This is correct, but I don't want to go in and tweak it. In fact, I'm not even sure that a little tweak can do it; it seems to me that the syntax here is strained enough already. Thanks, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:Yeah, grammatically speaking that is vague. Let's work on a fix. <
:Okay, here are some alternate ideas...
Line 1,301:
<blockquote>'''C:''' ...I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why, though you might not have done so on purpose. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary...</blockquote>
:Note that all of these will optionally include, "you recently removed some content ''from page'' without explaining why..." <
::Since I, like countless other users, very frequently issue warnings for reverts which were performed by others, I strongly oppose option B (as well as all other warnings which similarly claim that the warning issuer was also the reverter).<p>A lot of times, when I issue a level 1 warning, it's an AGF with a wink – I know that the edit most likely was not done in good faith, but I AGF anyways. But I see how something like blanking could easily be done accidentally, so I think it's good to acknowledge that, and my preference would be C. (I know that shorter is considered preferable, so A would also be fine on that basis.) [[User:Mandarax|<span style="color:green">M<small>AN</small>d<small>ARAX</small></span>]] <span style="color:blue">•</span> [[User talk:Mandarax|<span style="color:#999900"><small>XAЯA</small>b<small>ИA</small>M</span>]] 21:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)</p>
:::Okay, I think we can go with option A then. I think it's even better than the current version, because it pushes what we actually want the person to do at a minimum (which is explain why they are doing something). Thanks for the comments. :) <
:::{{Done}} now. <
== Twinkle issue ==
As you probably know, Twinkle allows the user to append text to the end of a template message. However, what I've noticed with the new wording (at least with <nowiki>{{uw-delete1}}</nowiki>) is that it inserts this text between "Thanks," and the signature. Previously, the template ended with "Thank you." (i.e., full stop) so that any subsequent comment was a separate sentence. Now the result is "Thanks, ''You deleted text that cites its sources.'' -- Gyrofrog…". I think, at least in this detail, that the old format was better. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 22:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
:I don't think there's a substantial difference between the two options, so if people prefer the version where a note was appended after a full stop, let's switch them back to that. My main reason for switching to "Thanks, <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" is that it seemed better grammar than making the thank you a sentence fragment. <
:: <small>([[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]])</small> Even better might be to insert the comment ''before'' the "Thanks"/"Thank you". But maybe there were other issues with that. -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 22:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
::: I don't think that should cause a big problem, and it does sound better. Let me sandbox it. <
::: Okay, I gave it a shot, but couldn't get it to appear before the "Thanks,". Maybe ask on the Twinkle talk page? I think the change might need to happen in the script rather than the templates. <
:::: I was thinking it might be a Twinkle question. Thanks, -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 23:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::It looks like an argument could be added (optional, of course) that would take the comment and insert it. Then Twinkle would have to be updated to pass the comment to the template. Adding the argument wouldn't be difficult, but I don't know much of Twinkle as far as difficulty in updating accordingly. For an example, try {{tlu|User:Nouniquenames/uw-delete1}}. I added a second arg to pass the comment. <nowiki>{{User:Nouniquenames/uw-delete1||A comment.}} passes a comment without specifying a page, and {{User:Nouniquenames/uw-delete1|page|A comment.}} passes both page and comment.</nowiki> --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] ([[User talk:Nouniquenames|talk]])
Line 1,327:
The template's scope is the "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material", but the recent changes to the level 1 templates have arbitrarily changed the scope to just "unsourced material". This wasn't really discussed in the RfC, and it creates a minor problem, because both Twinkle and [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]] have the description of this template as "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material", but that's no longer accurate. Either "improperly cited" needs to be addressed in the template, or the descriptions for the template need to be updated. I'm leaning towards having "improperly cited" in the template, as it was part of the scope of the template, but I wanted to discuss it before doing anything one way or the other. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 18:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
:It was not the intention to remove any mention of reliability requirements, so I've made this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-unsourced1&diff=505801247&oldid=504966137 more clear] now. If the issue is not with the reliability of the source but merely that it was improperly cited (e.g. bad markup or in the wrong place) I think the right thing to do is to explain that to the person, rather than making a generic statement via a template about being improperly cited. <
::I agree with the changed wording-- I think it's clearer. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,346:
: I'm also strongly against the new wording of ''"Hello, I'm Jimbo. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. "'' This is far too close to ''"I'm the spoilsport who messed with your fun, please troll the crap out of me personally."'' [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
:: Fortunately, data from the six months we spent a/b testing this kind of message demostrated that your interpretation is not how new editors hear the new wording. I would encourage anyone with questions or issues to take a look at the RFC where consensus to make these changes was reached. <
::I agree that the "such as" makes no sense whatever in this message, and perhaps in some others. As for the advantages of matter-of-fact concise notices over faux-polite, I agree with Andy. The consensus so far has been otherwise--perhaps people are so used to the hypocrisy that they prefer it. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 22:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
:::The ''such as'' tweak is one that I think would respect the overal consensus of the RFC. The "to somepage" needs to be wrapped in an optional parameter though, since manual applications of the template don't require the page name to be included. The part that I was responding negatively to was the change of the first person voice. Otherwise, I think people should go ahead and try to make the grammar tweak that Isarra and James have proposed. <
::::Well, the reason I posted this here in the first place was because said tweak was already tried and subsequently reverted. Is this the point in the discussion where we consider that resolved and make the tweak in proper Yoda terms ("Do or Do not. There is no try.")? -— [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] [[User talk:Isarra|༆]] 17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
::::: Yoda sez do. The only caveat is that the page name has to be an optional condition, otherwise the template will look broken without it. <
::::::Are you Yoda? -— [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] [[User talk:Isarra|༆]] 19:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I'm ugly like Yoda, but that's about it. <
::::::::You could get some ears. That might do it. And thank you for making the change. -— [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] [[User talk:Isarra|༆]] 22:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,363:
I just had the opportunity to use the updated {{tl|uw-spam1}}, but I've noticed an issue with the wording. The warning says "I wanted to let you know that I removed ''an external link'' you added, because to me ''it'' seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia" (my emphasis). However, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_education&diff=cur&oldid=prev I removed two links] from the page in question, so it would be more accurate to say "I wanted to let you know that I removed ''the external links'' you added, because to me ''they'' seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia". Is there a way to update the wording so that it works better in the case of multiple links being added/removed? — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 09:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
:Yeah we should address that. I'll give it a go today. <
:But there is also lot of spamming that doesn't use external links at all, but is based on keywords, generally mentioning things, and that sort of thing. What of that? It's no more appropriate than the linky kind. -— [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] [[User talk:Isarra|༆]] 17:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
== The 'thanks,' at the end of some of the level one user warnings ==
Line 1,389:
Which is... odd. -— [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] [[User talk:Isarra|༆]] 18:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
:They don't end with a full stop because that's a sentence fragment. An exclamation mark would look less funky with the -- pre-sig markup, and would be grammatically correct. <
::Sentence fragments end with full stops same as anything else when not part of other full sentences which end with full stops. But while an exclamation point would solve it, it would still be quite strange in context - why would the average user be that excited over personal attacks? -— [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] [[User talk:Isarra|༆]] 19:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
:::That's why the exclamation mark is only applied to the thanks. The thanks is for actually reading the message and following the instructions. Wouldn't you want to say thanks to someone who actually listened and didn't just keep doing whatever? <
::::Not with an exclamation point, unless I'm trying to make it clear I'm being sarcastic or some such. But sarcasm is generally unhelpful around these parts. -— [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] [[User talk:Isarra|༆]] 22:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
::::: Agreed. I noticed this earlier today. Ending with "Thank you." instead of "Thanks," would be far more logical and allow the user to personalise the message without having to make two edits. [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ([[User talk:Black Kite|talk]]) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::: I didn't see any opinion against, so I changed the templates listed above to say "Thank you." --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] ([[User talk:Nouniquenames|talk]]) 04:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Yeah, I don't think it's a big deal. I would add that the casual "Thanks" is much friendlier than the formal "Thank you". Even a period after "Thanks." makes it sound sterner. For the level one template where we should mostly be assuming good faith (except with uw-npa, etc.) the less formal voice is important. <
== Template for using non-neutral language in RfC description ==
Line 1,435:
The new wording assumes that the applying ed is also the editor who performed the initial revert. This isn't always the case. I recently had cause to apply this template, and then had to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:176.61.118.22 manually re-edit]. Please note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A176.61.118.22&diff=505176172&oldid=505175059 the difference] and take into consideration. [[User:RashersTierney|RashersTierney]] ([[User talk:RashersTierney|talk]]) 23:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, this was noted during [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings|the RfC]] about the changes. The response was that it is an edge case rather than the norm that you warn someone you did not revert, and that testing showed the advantage of using active, first person voice (instead of the passive third person, e.g. "you have been reverted") was great enough that it was worth the possibility that you could not use the standard template if you were warning someone for another person's revert. Sorry for any confusion or extra work that might have caused you. <
::Thanks for response. Still not convinced it's an improvement, but anyways...at least I'll know in future. [[User:RashersTierney|RashersTierney]] ([[User talk:RashersTierney|talk]]) 00:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::How do we deal with these edge cases then? I think restoring the old impersonal notices and warnings (with another name, maybe?) could help solving the issue. The alternative I see is that a number of editors will grow ''different'' nonstandard userspace versions for each multilevel warning template, a less desirable scenario. --[[User:M4gnum0n|M4gnum0n]] ([[User talk:M4gnum0n|talk]]) 13:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
:::You mean forking and having both versions around? I mean, I think people are free to do that just as they are free to create personal versions in userspace. What the RfC was about is not just getting agreement for any change, but that the changes would happen in the default warnings approved by WikiProject User Warnings, which are also what Twinkle and Huggle standardize on. <
::::It seems like these "edge cases" happen more frequently than was alluded to in the RfC. I don't think that this issue was adequately addressed in the RfC, but was rather dismissed as a non-issue. If these default templates are going to stay "first-person only" like this, I think we'll need to restore the old templates under a different name and add them to Twinkle and Huggle as well, because as it stands it seems to be causing more annoyance than it solved. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::It's the restoring to Twinkle and Huggle idea that I have a big issue with. If that happens, no one will use the new versions merely out of habit and old preference, rather than giving the new versions a fair try. During the discussion, the point we made was not just that what's been discussed is an edge case, but that the data from the tests showed that speaking in the first person was ''vitally important'' for not biting newbies. The purpose of the level one template is primarily to advise people of their errors while still assuming good faith. The first person voice is the single most important change for making these warnings meet that standard, and I am not comfortable saying we should just ignore the consensus of the RfC and further complicate our vandalfighting tools by doubling the number of options for level one warnings. <
:::::::Of all the editors that commented specifically on the lack of third-party use in these templates, you were the only one that didn't have a concern about it. It's the "level 1 is first-person only, even when that makes no sense" thing that's the issue. By trying to fix one perceived issue, it ended up causing another where an editor cannot use a template, because what it's saying is factually inaccurate. The RfC consensus was to use these as the "default", not the "only". - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 23:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I don't mean to seem dismissive about the fact that first person means you can't use the template for the case where you don't revert but warn. What I'm saying is that the relatively minor inconvenience of having to use a different template or write a sentence or two by hand is worth the gains we get in not biting new editors, as well as more clearly getting the message across about what they did wrong. That opinion is reflected in the consensus that the new versions should be the one used by default by vandalfighters. <
:::::::::It's a relatively minor inconvenience for you, but not for others. Providing an alternate template that's specifically meant to be used for a third-party situation like this would solve that issue, and would have no effect on the consensus about the default template (as the template name and description in TW/HG would reflect that it's a third-party wording for a specific use). - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 23:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::How about this: we draft a new template specifically for the case of warning without having reverted the person? Something like {{tl|uw-warnonly}} as a single level template. I would be cool with providing that alternative, rather than adding all the old level ones back into the tools. <
:::::::::::I tried thinking of how it would be worded to cover ''every single'' level 1 template situation, but it doesn't work. It would be overly generic, which would be a step backwards from the "don't [[WP:BITE]]" argument and would be less useful than not leaving a message at all. I don't see any reason why the old ones shouldn't be added; these level 1 templates have a narrower scope and created lack of suitable templates for a specific purpose, the answer to that is to (re)create suitable templates for those specific purposes. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 18:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::Giving people completely generic, impersonal warnings does not work. This was the conclusion of both the template A/B tests (i.e. data collected from thousands of applications) and the consensus among editors in the RFC. I can see how the specific instance where you warn someone but don't revert them is not covered, but I am not going to support sneaking around the consensus of the RFC by readding templates which we demonstrated were not desirable. <
:::::::::::::I have read through the RfC, nothing in it suggests that there is any sort of consensus against third-person templates, the only thing even close to this is that ''these default templates'' are first-person. This change created a need for additional templates, because they fulfilled a basic function that is no longer fulfilled. There is no consensus about this, so there cannot be any "sneaking around" a consensus which does not exist. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 23:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The consensus was to replace the previous defaults with the new ones precisely because they are superior in a variety of ways. Subverting that by adding the old, bitey templates back is not acceptable. <
:::::::::::::::Your opinion of the acceptability of this is just that, an opinion. Your changes created a problem, the lack of proper templates for common situations. After dismissing this problem as a non-issue, it ends up being not as insignificant a thing as you believed. This won't affect the RfC or the default templates in any way, and will resolve an issue. I don't see any reason to try to prevent that issue from being resolved. It's not "bitey" in any way to create templates specifically for third-person situations, not by a long shot. I would appreciate it if you didn't use words like "subverting" and "sneaking around", because that's hardly a civil description of someone trying to come up with a solution to a recently created issue, especially when it's being discussed here first; I can't think of a more public place to appropriately discuss uw templates. Discussing it here well before even trying to create the templates is hardly "sneaking around".
:::::::::::::::There is no consensus anywhere in the RfC that comes anywhere close to saying that third-person tone shouldn't be used when the message is specifically third-person, so there is nothing to "subvert". I'll also note that the closing comments specifically said that these templates were not complete; that the consensus is that these default templates are largely agreed upon, but that additional "tweaks" are needed. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 02:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} "Tweaks" are not changing the narrative voice of the template entirely. As you can see from other threads on this page, I am very much open to tweaking the templates as they are. But you know just as well as I do that if they are provided, most patrollers would happily revert back to old habits instead of using the level one templates which, through many months of hard work, were arrived at as an improvement which many people could agree on. I offered a compromise that would provide a template to specifically address the cases where you warn someone that you did not revert, but with zero data to back up your opinion, you say that's not enough. Well I'm sorry, but it's not okay to waste everyone's time who participated in that RfC by making it easy for patrollers to ignore the consensus that the new templates are what should be used by default. <
:I don't follow, and I think there's a misunderstanding about what I'm sayingble to be specifically tailored to that wording. Therefore, although ''technically'' some. I never said that they would just be a replica of the old template, only that they would follow the third-person tone the previous templates utilized; however because they would be one for third-person use, they would be aone would be capable of using these templates instead of the default ones, it wouldn't make sense because the wording wouldn't fit; the template would say something along the lines of "another editor reverted" (just like it doesn't make sense for a third-person editor to use the current defaults, because it says "I reverted"). I'm not talking about just copying the old templates and using those. I said the old templates were third-person and since the new defaults are first-person, these "another person reverted but I'm explaining why" specific templates need to go back, not to the old template, but to the third-person tone. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 03:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,460:
::Thanks. {{t|uw-vandalism0|Article}} looks like what we need. - [[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 11:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
:::As I said above, I think having a specific template to address the "I warned them but didn't revert" case is a good solution. I do think the tweaks to uw-vandalism0 suggested on the talk page of the RFC are heading in a good direction, but in general I think this is a good compromise. <
::::I don't understand (and don't have patience to read the whole discussion above). Why can't we change the wording from
I wanted to let you know that I undid one of [[Special:Contributions/{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|your recent contributions]]{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}| to [[:{{{1}}}]]}} because...
Line 1,469:
:::: <big>[[User:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[User talk:-- -- --|'''--''']] [[Special:Contributions/-- -- --|'''--''']]</big> 22:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} The reason that's not quite enough is that new or anonymous editors don't all understand the editing process, and that being reverted means that either a person or individual bot reverted them. {{tl|uw-vandalism0}} is in place and being optimized to handle the exception that you warn someone you didn't revert, and it's probably a good idea that we make the wording you're suggestion an option in Twinkle (like checking a box that says, "I didn't revert this person"). But it's really important that, in the case where you do revert someone and warn them (like through Huggle), you make it clear that it was you who did it. This educates new people about how our editorial process works. The data we collected via the [[WP:UWTEST|testing project]] showed that when we tell new/anonymous people that a real human being saw their edit and chose to revert it, not some mysterious force that "has" reverted them, that both is less insulting to good faith contributors ''and'' more discouraging to vandals. It shows people that there is a community here, and that we're paying close attention. <
== [[Template:Uw-softerblock]] - links to username policy ==
Line 1,494:
The {{tl|uw-delete1}} template used to be something I could use when someone blanked large chunks of content, whether a summary was provided or not. The new wording now suggests that blanking should be generically labelled as vandalism in cases where the blanker has provided a summary. I'm sure there's reasons for the new wording, but I really question the value of the change. The new wording may be more "friendly", but it limits the functionally of a template that worked well before the change. We already have a user-warning template that addressed summary issues. -- [[Special:Contributions/WikHead|WikHead]] ([[User talk:WikHead|talk]]) 22:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings]] if you're wondering how the new wordings were arrived at. <
::I'd missed those discussions myself...and also dislike the new wording. Oh well. I was definitely not on as much as I used to be. Were they at least widely advertised? (I just told someone that I'm Onorem. I'm not. That's just the name on the account.) --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 06:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
:::It was listed at [[WP:CENT]], the Village Pump, and the talk pages for this project, Counter-vandalism Unit etc. for the month it was going on. <
::::Fair enough. Thanks for the info. I don't like it, but can't argue with the results of the discussion. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 18:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::Can we still use the old wording if we want to? (I just warned a user and found the old wording closer to what I wanted to say.) [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 15:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yes, the consensus was not about forbidding the use of any particular template someone wants to use. It was about what the versions recommended and maintained by WikiProject User Warnings look like, and thus what the defaults are in Twinkle, Huggle, etc. <
:::::::Thank you. That's very good to know as it will save me from feeling obligated to use templates that I'm uncomfortable with. Is it possible to create a direct shortcut to the previous version, or will it require to be pasted in long-form? -- [[Special:Contributions/WikHead|WikHead]] ([[User talk:WikHead|talk]]) 17:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I second WikHead's question re previous versions. I also wrote more at [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Level_one_user_warnings| here]] --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 09:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,528:
== Template:uw-attempt ==
Hello, is there an kind alternate template to {{tl|uw-attempt}}? I would prefer to use a template that kindly warns first time offenders instead of giving a level 4im. I have created an example template in my [[User:Riley Huntley/sandbox|sandbox]]. <span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; font-weight: bold; cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, [[User:Riley Huntley|<
== Bot for Categories ==
Line 1,570:
== [[Template:Uw-copyright]] ==
There was a concern brought to my attention recently that this template is too harsh in its wording; particularly the bolded text at the end that threatens the editor with a block if copyright violations are persistent. I said I would bring the issue here for opinions. I understand that we want to be strict about copyright issues, and that is a persuasive argument. But I wonder if anyone believes the template could be worded better. On the flip side, perhaps the issue lies more with the editor who uses the template - i.e., that editors should be apt to use it more for egregious violators, and less for established users or those that have made one-time mistakes, when personal messages might be better instead. <small><
:Have you looked at {{tl|uw-copyright-new}}? It has a gentler tone for new users - for more experienced users and/or repeat offenders, I think the stronger tone of {{tl|uw-copyright}} is probably appropriate. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 05:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,595:
:Hi Roger. I understand where you're coming from here, but actually the current level 1 user warnings are the result of a lot of research and discussion. Have you seen [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings|the RfC]] where they were implemented? Reading it might provide a better background, if you haven't done so already. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 15:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
::That there was an RfC doesn't dismiss any concerns, especially when the closing administrator specifically pointed out that the consensus was "with the caveat that there were a number of "tweak this more" comments--some of which were tackled, others which may be tackled later on." I don't see anything in the RfC that suggests that this concern was met with any consensus regarding this specific wording. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 19:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:::If you look at their history and the discussion, as well as their history during the RfC, many of those tweaks were implemented. <
::::I have, but that doesn't mean the tweaks are finished or that any suggestion should be referred to the RfC as if it has consensus to not change anything further. That the first wikilink in the template is a username and not something more relevant is a valid concern, one that can be tweaked. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 23:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::It's not a concern. It's a part of the core value of the new templates. We didn't just propose these on a whim remember, but tested them in a controlled, randomized fashion, and then examined the impact on editing activity of all types. Telling all users, vandals and good faith, that they were reverted by an individual rather than automatically, is extremely important to teaching newbies about collaborative editing. <
::::::It has been pointed out previously, but without any satisfactory reply, that if the person doing the revert doesn't give the warning, the new level 1 templates are not suitable for a 3rd party to give the warning. I agree with the many people who have said that this change is not an improvement. The apparently less official [[Template:Uw-vandalism0]] is better than [[Template:Uw-vandalism1]]. - [[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 12:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It would be pretty easy to add a new parameter to the level one templates to make them look more like [[Template:Uw-vandalism0]] if they are added by a third party. Getting Twinkle to add the parameter to the template would take a little more effort, but is definitely in the realm of the possible. Does this sound like a workable solution to you? — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 14:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::{{tl|Uw-vandalism0}} -- "I wanted to let you know that at least one of your recent edits appears to have been inappropriate and has been reverted." was intentionally written with the case of warning when you didn't revert. I believe it was added to Twinkle as well? <
::::::::As far as I can tell {{tl|uw-vandalism0}} hasn't been added to Twinkle. Or maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius on tour|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius on tour|have a chat]])</sup> 23:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::We should get it added then. (I'd be happy to make that request.) <
::::::I think [[WP:OWN|you need to step back]] and stop trying to reject anything that disagrees with your pet project. Your changes have been met with no consensus, especially when the RfC's closing admin specifically stated that further tweaks are needed. This is one such tweak. Don't like it? Explain why and establish a consensus for your preferred changes, don't refer to an RfC that doesn't support what you're saying as if that has some weight. Do not claim that removing the name as the first wikilink somehow turns the template into this "they won't know that they were reverted by an individual rather than automatically" scenario, that is a false dichotomy. Like articles, templates need to be concise and sum up the point of the template in the first sentence and then expand upon it later, since many editors don't read the entirety of them. Therefore "Hi, I'm SudoGhost." is a ''horrible'' and pointless beginning to a template. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 13:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I know this is anecdotal evidence only, but I use level 0 (which was amended somewhat during the prior discussion), or go straight to a level 2. I think I've templated with a level 1 perhaps three times. The level 0 invites queries or comments either on their talk page or mine.. The level 1 invites questions or responses on my talk page. Absolutely ''no one'' has bitten and responded to ''any'' of my cautions ''in any way.'' I now have so many user talk pages on my watchlist, just in case someone will reply either ___location, that sometime soon I'm going to have to weed out the earlier ones. Especially since it was stated somewhere profound that warnings are considered to become stale after two weeks anyway. I'm sitting in a small corner of Wikipedia, but anecdotally I can't tell that I've reached out to inspire or prod any of the users to become good editors by any of my communications...even with my personally composed messages. They mostly end up with a sanction or just disappear. I have a two IPs who foursquare ignore me and continue merrily on with their contrary ways. <b>[[User:Fylbecatulous|<span style="color:#595454;">Fylbecatulous</span>]] [[User talk:Fylbecatulous|<span style="color:#967BB6;">talk</span>]] </b> 13:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I'm in a similar boat; I don't use the level one templates ever since they were changed and from speaking with other editors, I'm far from the only one that just avoids these new templates altogether. When the closing RfC comment says that "tweaks are needed" is ''the consensus'', it doesn't make sense to object to everything single change while referring to the RfC as reason to reject any change. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 14:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::The idea you're positing that revisions weren't made to tweak is untrue. As for the proposal about removing the statement of who reverted an editor and linking to the username: it's hardly a tweak. It's an essential difference in tone (active, first person vs. passive voice). As for the use of level 0 or 2 warnings as an alternative... I heard much the same from a handful of other patrollers. But when we looked at the project-wide data, it seems with [[:m:Template A/B testing/Post mortem|use of level one warnings vs. level two]], the proportions stayed much the same. (You can also see an overall increase in the use of TW and decrease in HG). <
::::::::::That's a wonderfully pointless response, and fails to address a single thing that was said. Unless you have consensus that the current versions are faultless and need no further tweaking, the consensus of the RfC stands, that the templates ''are not'' "finished" and will be adjusted as necessary. I never "posited" any such idea, that's wonderful red herring, but again pointless. This "difference in tone" is another false dichotomy, and is getting tiresome. Unless you have something useful to contribute, your repeated attempts to ignore the RfC and assume ownership of all of the level one templates will be ignored and consensus will determine how the templates are changed without your input. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 23:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Now you're just getting personal in your attacks. Please stick to discussing content. <
::::::::::::Everytime someone ''tries'' to discuss the content, you attempt to shoot it down citing an RfC that does not reflect what you're saying. Please stop this. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 00:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Steven, I too am mystified by your response above. {{xt|The proportions of ''what'' stayed the same}}? Not that it matters, really. What I am interested in discerning is: now that we as patrollers are ''in real time'' using these revised templates, do you have any evidence that the "difference in tone" is teaching newbies or contraries to become good editors and thusly retain them? Not during the study, but now? Because as I posted above, I haven't even had one editor reach out and touch me with any kind of response. I have them all watched, and I don't see them growing into blooming flowers who wish to make amends and edit well. They are all fading away, or getting further sanctions. I think the new template messages are ''weaker'' in tone to the point that when I use anything below a 2, all my cautionees yawn at me and say "that's nice". <b>[[User:Fylbecatulous|<span style="color:#595454;">Fylbecatulous</span>]] [[User talk:Fylbecatulous|<span style="color:#967BB6;">talk</span>]] </b> 00:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)\
{{od}} The proportions of level one templates used compared to level two warnings. The point was that patrollers overall are not abandoning the level one templates. They work, even if that personally has not been your experience. <
===Moving forward===
That the first link in the template is an editor's username is a valid concern, since it takes away from the conciseness of the templates and shifts the focus on who is speaking rather than what is being said. That the templates previously felt too "automated" is also a valid concern, but the way they are currently written is overkill. However, how do we fix that while keeping with the discussion in the RfC? - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 23:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:This has been addressed at length already on this talk page and in the RfC itself. The use of [[first person]], active voice, and the link to the username was tested rigorously for months. One of the core conclusions of the testing was that using a passive voice, where the reverting and warning editor is identified in the third person, is not advantageous for warning away vandals or correcting good faith contributors who made a mistake. Attempting to controvert that conclusion, arrived at both through community consensus and the test data, is not fruitful. {{tl|uw-vandalism0}} was created to deal with the legitimate edge case of warning an editor you did not revert, where the current level 1 is not useful. Otherwise, you haven't presented a very specific, coherent reason why using the first person is bad. <
::To suggest that removing the order of wikilinks would change "the active voice" is absurd, please read what is being written before responding, because what you're aruging against is not being suggested. Yes, this has been addressed at length. The consensus? That further tweaks were needed. There was no consensus that the very first thing in the template should be a link to the editor leaving the comment, and ''nobody is suggesting that a third person tone be used'', you're arguing against something that ''nobody is suggesting''. Please stop attempting to ignore and circumvent the RfC consensus, or your comments here will be ignored, because they aren't helping anyone, and your red herring arguments aren't helping yourself either. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 00:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, there was consensus to support the current version of the templates, including the userpage link. I find it almost funny that you would say I would studiously trying to circumvent an RfC that I started. While you're arguing about to remove something without a rationale, we're talking above about how to make sure uw-vandalism0 is available in Twinkle. It's a good compromise. <
::::We also all know that everyone that starts an RfC is always happy with the outcome, right? Find me this consensus that the userpage link belongs at the beginning of the template, because I've looked, it isn't there. Every time a "tweak" is suggested, you try to shoot it down citing the RfC, but ironically the RfC does not say that the templates are without issue, in fact the RfC's consensus is that these templates still need to be worked on, so your protestations are hollow at best, and you're arguing against things that aren't being suggested. You've already established that you do not read things before responding, so I am not surprised you do not see any rationale. uw-vandalism0 is about the use of third-person in templates, not the way this template is worded. How you think that is relevant is beyond me, but it looks like you're discussing something ''completely different'' than everyone else. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 00:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure what this is all about but I'm beginning to get slightly irritated by constantly having to manually remove the first person from the L1 vandalism warning when warning a user whose edit(s) I did not remove. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,635:
Any other thoughts? [[User:78.26|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:red; padding:1px;background:1h5h1h; color:#008B8B;"><b>78.26</b></span>]] ([[User talk:78.26|I'm no IP, talk to me!]]) 15:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:Logically, it makes sense to say what the person should do if they contest the revert first. If they don't have something to say to you, the next logical step is ''why'' did you revert me? That's where WP:EL comes in. Anyway, I think your suggestion would work fine, though I would like it if it said something like, "Please take a look at our guidelines about links, for reference". One alternative might be, "...because it seemed inappropriate according to our [[WP:EL|policy on external links]]." <
== Wnote shortcut ==
Why does [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Wnote]] have a shortcut of {{tl|s/wnote}} (as documented [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Usage and layout#Layout|here]])? {{tl|s}} is a shortcut to {{tl|space}}, which produces non-breaking spaces. This seems weird. — [[User:Hex|<span style="color:#000;">Hex</span>]] [[User_talk:Hex|<span title="Hex's talk page"><
:Agreed it seems weird. Could it have simply been a typo when the redirect was originally created? (Note that the redirect target includes the string "s/".) And now it's enshrined in documentation and 109 transclusions? – [[User:Wdchk|Wdchk]] ([[User talk:Wdchk|talk]]) 03:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
== Level 1 templates: parameter 2 ==
Line 1,675:
== New test warning to welcome anon users ==
I've seen lots of test edits by anonymous, [[IP Address]], users who have not yet received a welcome message. Also, I noticed that there doesn't seem to be a [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates|wikipedia welcome template]] that is specifically designed to warn anonymous users that testing isn't appropriate (I've searched extensively -- more than just that page). I worked up a template to fill this gap but I don't know if it's ready for primetime. I'm looking for an experienced template editor to help polish and guide this useful tool through the final stages. Please post something on my talk page if you're interested in helping. Thanks! - <b>[[User:Tucoxn|<
::Did you see [[Template:welcome-anon-test]]? [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 21:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
:::I did. That message doesn't use any of the [[help:magic words|magic words]] that identify an anon user's [[IP address]]. Also, why doesn't it simply include the language in <code><nowiki>{{subst:Shared IP advice}}</nowiki></code>? - <b>[[User:Tucoxn|<
::::As I recall it was based on another welcome message that must not have had those features. I have no problem with you improving it. I added the basepagename parameter, edited it a bit for possible shared usage and added the shared IP advice from welcome-anon-vandal. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 04:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, [[User:Jojalozzo|Jojalozzo]]. Adding the basepagename parameter was one of the things I wanted to see. I made a couple small edits. Let me know what you think before I suggest any additional changes. - <b>[[User:Tucoxn|<
::::::This is great. Go for it. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 17:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Jojalozzo|Jojalozzo]], I'm still looking into tweaks that can be made to {{tl|welcome-anon-test}} but I noticed something else on the template that doesn't seem to work and I don't know how to fix it. The "Username" parameter doesn't seem to function. Could you verify that it's broken and and fix it? Thanks! - <b>[[User:Tucoxn|<
::::::Yes, I'll have a look... [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 02:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::If you add your user name as the second parameter it makes the text "my talk page" into a link to your talk page. That is working. Maybe we just need to clarify the docs to say that. I just copied the welcome-anon-vandal docs so I will update them both. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 03:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::I wikified the link to the <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[:Category:Wikipedians looking for help|helpme]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> template. I'm also working on distributing wiki-links to [[Template:welcome-anon-test]] to the other locations where welcome and vandalism/test templates are located.
::::::One thing I don't know how to do: the words "here on ''your'' talk page" should have the same link for the user to edit his talk page. I think this is another opportunity for some of wikipedia's [[help:magic words|magic words]]. Thanks! - <b>[[User:Tucoxn|<
:::::::Such a link would only be useful when the template is used ''somewhere other than on a user's talk page''. I do not think such a use case exists. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 19:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
== Template:uw-notenglish ==
Line 1,694:
== Username warning, suggested improvement ==
I should like to have an additional parameter in {{tl|Uw-username}}, say {{para|goodedit}
{{quote|''Please note that this is a procedural matter, and not a reflection on your edits, which are most welcome''}}
Line 1,705:
*Current:
*#{{tq|Your account has been '''[[WP:Block|blocked]] indefinitely''' from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.}}
*#{{tq|Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?<
*Proposed:
Line 1,807:
# Using an active, first person voice actually drives away vandals better. They see that real people are watching every edit flowing through RecentChanges, and that they're not going to get away with it. (We hand categorized literally 12,000+ reverted edits as part of this process, and measured differences in behavior between obvious vandals, test edits, and people who were simply misguided about something like WP:V and NPOV.)
# This part is just my opinion, but I think most common level one warnings don't really merit discussion on the article talk page. People getting uw-vandalism1 or uw-delete1 (two of the most common issues) don't need to start a consensus-building process. They just need to read the message, and stop what they were doing. The user talk link is there if they want to ask a real person who knows something about the issue, and my experience as an admin has been that not many people really care enough to come bug me about anything. They either keep vandalizing and get blocked, or leave.
:Anyway, happy to discuss more of course. But I wanted to give a little context, and in particular point out that we made this change carefully and slowly with real data behind it, not just because some folks felt like it was a good idea. <
::Aye, there was testing and discussion, but while I appreciate that this is something you're very close to, the fact of the matter remains that there were concerns about the overly personal nature of the messages then and there are concerns about it now. And it goes both ways - beyond making vandal fighters uncomfortable, such a tone can also devalue the message as effectively as an overly formal one: I had one tester remark about how precisely because it was so friendly it clearly was just an automated message. -— [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] [[User talk:Isarra|༆]] 00:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You can't make everyone happy. We have to make a decision, so we might as well make one based on objective data rather than pure gut instinct. People aren't forced to use the default warnings, after all. As for the user testing: that doesn't hint at the need for a change to the warning text. It hints at the need for us to do away with generalized, semi-automated warnings and either replace them with real system messages (like notifications) or make it much easier for people to leave each other real human messages (like Flow). <
::::Thanks for the background info Steven. It's a pity RFC was not on my watchlist at that time. I think there is sufficient justification to adjust some of the level 1 warnings to be less "cute" as some of the issues these warnings address can't ever be good faith errors. We need not treat obviously intentional vandals as if they just need a little friendly guidance (and a cookie), sometimes "Waste the mutha....ers!" really is justified even at the first offence. [[User:Dodger67|Roger]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 09:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Indeed, objectivity makes a difference - the user testing doesn't hint at anything beyond that such warnings being so 'personal' can lead people to discount them same as if they're too formal. Perhaps having an system message would change that, but perhaps it wouldn't, as there could still be arguments for making the tone of such a system message more personal or more formal. And Flow won't change people, either - speaking as someone who reverts vandalism and regularly templates folks for at least some others as well, hardest part of writing our own personal messages has generally been the actual writing a personal message part, regardless of the interface, especially when so often we know the folks won't read them anyway.
Line 1,824:
changes here first. Let me know if there are any objections to the following:
{{tq|Hello. When you add content to [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] by typing four [[tilde]]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment*. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.<br />*<small>Alternatively, with the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, you can click on the signature button ([[File:Insert-signature.png|15px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts]] or [[File:Signature icon.png|15px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts]]) located above the edit window.</small>}}▼
▲Hello. When you add content to [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] by typing four [[tilde]]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment*. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.<br />*<small>Alternatively, with the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, you can click on the signature button ([[File:Insert-signature.png|15px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts]] or [[File:Signature icon.png|15px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts]]) located above the edit window.</small>
<span style="color:red;">—[</span>[[User:AlanM1|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:green;">Alan</span><span style="color:blue;">M</span><span style="color:purple;">1</span></span>]]([[User talk:AlanM1|talk]])<span style="color:red;">]—</span> 02:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
: Hi AlanM1. I'm fine with your proposed wording; I think it's an improvement. IMO the following wording would be even better, because it avoids distracting the reader with the jumping-around necessary to read footnotes:
: {{tq|Hello. When you add content to [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]]. There are two ways to do this. Either:}}
:* {{tq|Add four [[tilde]]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment.}}
:* {{tq|Or, with the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, you can click on the signature button ([[File:Insert-signature.png|15px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts]] or [[File:Signature icon.png|15px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts]]) located above the edit window.}}
: {{tq|This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.}}
: Cheers, [[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]] ([[User talk:Unforgettableid|talk]]) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Line 1,914 ⟶ 1,908:
== Overtemplating equivalent to uw-tdel series? ==
I was wondering if there was an equivalent to the <
:Try the {{tlxs|uw-disruptive1}} series. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 18:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks, that should cover the situation fine. —/[[User:Mendaliv|<b>M</b><small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 19:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Line 1,943 ⟶ 1,937:
:::I hadn't, but I have now. I've also read Isarra's contributions to that discussion; she has a somewhat different perspective, more in accord with Fuhghettaboutit's view. It would seem that the current presentations should be the default, but couldn't they be made optional to give editors like Fuhghettaboutit an alternative they would be more comfortable with? [[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 18:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
::::The actual consensus of the RfC was that the level one templates still need to be tweaked further; this appears to be the number one complaint about these templates so it is certainly something that needs to be addressed. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 20:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::And we did continue to tweak. But making the templates actually acknowledge up front that they come from another human being is one of the key differences A/B tested for months prior to the RFC. As I've said in previous followup discussions: this isn't actually a side issue, but a key part of the enhancements which lead to statistically significant increases in the ability of the warnings to be effective. <
::::::There's no consensus for that, and every time it's brought up you attempt to shoot it down citing a consensus which does not exist. The fact that this is the one aspect which is constantly brought up as something that needs to be addressed means that, in one form or another, it needs to be addressed. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 06:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Wholeheartedly agreed. It has been pointed out that it is stupid to say "''Hello, I'm Jimbo. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more ...''" when giving a warning to someone for an edit that someone else has already reverted. The revised templates have been given a trial, have been shown to be in need of improvement, and it is worrying that the WMF seem to be at odds with the community on the need for further change. - [[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 09:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::: Yes, the fact that we went through six months of controlled, randomized testing to gather data, followed by a month long Request for Comment with further edits to the templates, does make me less than happy about the idea that a relatively small number of people would come along after the fact to object to the core changes made. I didn't write this style of template based on my personal preferences or on casual observations. We did so through a pretty involved collaborative process, and I find it ridiculous that you might not consider the fact that we arrived conclusions which come from a deeper understanding than personal preference about the message style. What's more: these templates are not required to be used by anyone. They are merely the defaults. You are free to make and use whatever custom template you like, as most people do with templates like Welcome. You don't have to do or say anything you're not comfortable with, but I do find it irksome that you would seek to change the consensus version radically without adhering to the same rigor and standards for open input that we did. In short: these templates are not from or by "the WMF". They're by me and and the other 50-plus people who participated in [[WP:UWTEST]] and the following RFC. <
:::::::::Again, ''there is no consensus that this wording does not need to be changed'', the RfC's closing comments specifically says that "further tweaks are needed", that's quite the opposite of what you're suggesting. More importantly even if there were such a consensus, [[WP:CCC|consensus is not set in stone]], and these templates [[WP:OWN|are not yours]]; you are free to create your own templates, but if consensus determines that the wording of these specific templates need to be changed, the wording will be changed, per the consensus shown at the closing comments of the RfC. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 23:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not saying they can't change. That would be ridiculous. I'm saying what I've said before, which is that this part of all of them is actually not a minor thing, it's really important based on what the test data tells us, so if you want to change it I don't think you should do so based on a handful of people objecting after we held a much wider consensus discussion. <
:::::::::::...and what I'm saying is that the "much wider consensus discussion" specifically said that it needed to be tweaked further; there's no consensus to keep the current wording, so that's not a reason not to change it. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::: "there's no consensus to keep the current wording"? that's twisting the conclusion of the RFC pretty hard. <
:::::::::::::When the consensus of the RfC is that "further tweaks are needed", that's about as far from "twisting the consensus" as one can get. I would appreciate it if you focused on the actual content, instead of accusing others of "twisting the consensus", which is a rather pointless response without explaining ''how'' it would be "twisted". - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 04:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
:The focus of that discussion was not about my concern here—that the language is stilted and utterly redundant with signing. The focus was about whether it should be so personal and whether it should invite the warnee to your talk page to discuss and so on. To give an example of language I would be okay with, that's even ''more personal'', I would be fine if it said "Hi Name. I am another Wikipedia editor like you. I saw your edit to ____..." or something to that effect. I just cannot use a template that imparts a message in words I could never allow to bear my username because of its poor construction ''as a piece of writing''.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 04:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
::What seems redundant to you and I, as experienced editors, can be pretty important to first time readers who don't know who is sending them a message, what our funky custom signatures are, etc. We tested versions of very similar templates without the introduction currently in the level one warnings, and they weren't nearly as effective ([[:m:Template A/B testing/Results|full results discussion]], as noted in the original RFC). <
:::The problem with your conclusion is that you did not test an infinite series of templates but just a few different versions so now you are relying on the gross results but cannot actually tell me whether an alternative version, different from any that were tested but very much traveling down the same road of personalization and geared to signaling to the recipient that there's a real person writing the message would be possibly better than all of them (or worse), with language I would not find objectionable. I can't reverse the arrow of time to include any proposed alternative in the test, so I'll let it lie, but I will never use any of these warnings. So I will tailor (as I often do anyway). I am not concentrated on vandal fighting so it's no great burden on me but I do think others will also balk at the language and may avoid using them because of it.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 12:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
{{question}} - Various reasons have been given as to why the current wording of the first sentence of these templates do not work, so what wording do you think would fix these issues while still fixing the percieved "personal" issue? - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 23:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
:One compromise we came to after the fact was to create {{tl|Uw-vandalism0}}, which wasn't a part of the original discussion and which I think people should just edit boldly if they want. (It's currently up for deletion, but looks like it will be kept.) <
::If level 0 templates were able to be actually added to the [[:Template:Templatesnotice]] and Twinkle that would be a better alternative, but right now any level 0 templates aren't doing much good. The discussions on this talk page certainly seem to indicate that at least. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
== Own Templates ==
Line 2,187 ⟶ 2,181:
Any thoughts? [[User:PamD|<span style="color:green;">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color:brown;">'''''D'''''</span>]] 15:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
:There is also {{tl|uw-vandalism0}} which replicates the completely passive voice of the old versions of uw-vandalism1. You can also skip to level 2, which uses the passive voice. The reason we suggested not using that kind of passive message [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings|in the RFC]] that lead to the current version is because A) the most common use case by far is warning someone you reverted B) brand new or anonymous editors don't understand how reverting really works. When you say "has been undone" they don't necessarily understand that you mean another (human) editor, as opposed to some kind of automated system. It's more effective with both good and bad faith editors to introduce them to the idea that people like you are paying attention and reverting bad edits. <
== Bug? Feature? ==
Line 2,401 ⟶ 2,395:
:{{stop}} This is your '''only warning'''. If you don't start assuming good faith '''right now, you may be [[WP:BLOCK|blocked from editing]] without further notice.''' [[User:Ginsuloft|Ginsuloft]] ([[User talk:Ginsuloft|talk]]) 00:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Meh, How about this: [[image:stop_hand.svg|35px]] This is your '''only warning'''. The next time you assume bad faith on other users '''right now, it could result in a [[WP:BLOCK|loss of editing privileges]].''' [[User:DDreth|<span style="color:Red;">'''DD'''</span><span style="color:green;">'''reth'''</span>]] [[User talk:DDreth|<
{{Reply to|Mr. Stradivarius}} I think it might be worth taking them to [[WP:TfD|TfD]], especially since they don't really provide any information about exactly what the person needs to do differently. Ginsuloft & DDreth I really can't think of a time when it would be appropriate and necessary to give someone a warning about not AGF which doesn't assume good faith. Any and everytime there is an AGF issue it should be explained and discussed since [[WP:AGF]] depends a lot on personal interpretation of comment. '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 01:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
| |||