Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 12: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 1 thread from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. |
m Fixed Lint errors on this page (obsolete tags, misnested/stripped tags) |
||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
Quite often I see contributions like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannada&action=historysubmit&diff=415568507&oldid=414509010 this]. It looks to be in good faith, but it has two issues, 1) its not NPOV and 2) its not sourced. It would be really great if there was a template that let me say both those things at once. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
: Previously when I have encountered this problem, I have just selected which ever template seems to represent the greater violation. Also I generally use [[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle]] to warn (unless I'm [[WP:HG|Huggling]]). Twinkle allows you to add free text onto the end of a warning and I believe most templates support linking; you can also do this manually using an appropriately placed pipe symbol when placing the template code. Whilst a combined template is a good idea on one hand, how many do we create? There are a great many potential combinations. [[User:Pol430|<
::I suppose it could follow {{Tl|Multiple issues}}. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>23:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
:::The thing is more than other issues NPOV and Unsourced go hand in hand. Additional messages would be OK, but I'm not 100% on the wording - and would then have to save them somewhere (a user template would be great for this :p). -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 23:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::: Hmm, unfortunately, I personally, remain unsold on the idea of combined warnings. I feel it could lead to an unnecessary boom in the already voluminous uw-template collection. If you are going to warn about two policy infractions for one edit, why not just deliver two separate warnings that already exist—one after the other? [[User:Pol430|<
::::: That wouldbe taken care of with a {{Tl|Multiple warnings}}. However I do agree that often it's best to pick an editor up on just the main point, to avoid muddying the message. (Hence my preference for ''simple'' warning templates.) ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>12:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
== UW-3rr ==
Line 14:
:So instead of
{{{icon|[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]]}}} You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]] according to the reverts you have made on [[:George Bush]]. Users who [[WP:DISRUPT|edit disruptively]] or refuse to [[Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT|collaborate]] with others may be blocked if they continue.<br />
In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] states that:
# '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block'''.
Line 23:
:something like-
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] There appears to be an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]] which you may be involved in,   according to the reverts you have made on [[:George Bush]]. Users who [[WP:DISRUPT|edit disruptively]] including breaking the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] may find themselves blocked.<br />
*If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors.
*Alternatively you can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br /><!-- Template:uw-3rr -->
Line 29:
:''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
:: I made the changes that show 3rr in it's current light. I'm not adverse to toning down the block !threats; however, I feel the message should make it clear that continuing to edit war ''may'' result in a block ''without further notice''. This notice is specifically aimed at violations of 3rr. The message should also maintain parity with other 'single issue warnings' in the UW-series; in so much as, it should serve to deliver a strong cease and desist warning. I feel the language you propose is more akin to an L2 message from the multi level templates and is not in-keeping with the faith assumption this warning intends to convey. [[User:Pol430|<
:::I think the block threat shouldn't be so prominent too. There should also be a template for repeat violations.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] ([[User talk:Jasper Deng|talk]]) 22:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::: Could you please expand on how you feel giving repeated, or additional, warnings is appropriate in a 3rr situation? 3rr is defined in the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring policy]] as a [[Bright-line rule]]; meaning, you have either breached it, or you haven't. [[User:Pol430|<
:::Hm, what can I say, I'm a nice guy. But certainly I take your point about the strength of the message being important - and the imminence of a block. I'll try and revisit soon, unless someone beats me to it. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
{{Uw-3rr/sandbox|demo=1|George Bush|''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>23:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />}}
: <del>I've had a quick look again at the wording, and I entirely take your point about repeated use of the word 'block', although I have not yet been able (yet) to think of a suitable rewording. I'll have a think on it also.</del> [[User:Pol430|<
:: Ignore the above I hadn't actually noticed your revision of the template above (silly blind me!). I think the above version is fine. [[User:Pol430|<
:::OK well, lets try it out and see if there are any problems - change made. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>16:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
::::The current version is very watered-down. I don't think it will be effective for a certain subset of inexperienced users who also have a tendency to edit-war because they believe they are right. The previous warning "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." should be reinstated. Some more bolding to highlight key points of the text may be helpful as well. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 07:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
{{od|::::}}
I did find the previous version quite effective at stopping newer editors from edit warring and instead engaging in discussion. See [[Goldgenie]] and its talk page as an example. [[User:Pol430|<
:* We could re-instate the "do not... " warning.
:* I am not sure a plethora of bolding is a good idea. If points are not key they should be dropped - short and sweet.
Line 51:
::Reply to Rich: I think that the new template will not be as effective in the really hard cases. Have a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Agitatov here]. It took a page protection and an admin to stop this incident, in addition to the stronger template. If we had the watered-down version of the template I don't think it would have any real effect. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 12:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} Point taken that the effectiveness of the revised version can not, yet, be judged. I'll have another think on it later and see what I can come up with—in respect of addressing both concerns—then publish it here - unless someone beats me to it [[User:Pol430|<
::::Great. I'll wait to see your version. Rich just added a bolded statement that strengthens the template message. I also liked the "Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block." but, as I said, I can wait. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 12:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 63:
{{od|:}}How about:
{{{icon|[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]]}}} You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT|collaborate]] with others and avoid editing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]].<br />
In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] states that:
# '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.'''
Line 69:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you continue to edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further notice.'''
It makes the points Dr.K covers but tones down the use of the word block. I have bolded points 1 and 2 because I feel it draws the eye to what is relevant, I have also created a version that shows these points in ''italics'' rather than bold if consensus is that bolding is too aggressive. You can view them side by side in [[User:Pol430/Sandbox2|my sandbox]]. [[User:Pol430|<
:It looks good. It avoids the redundancy of the older version but keeps the salient points. I think it would be as effective as the older version. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 12:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:: I sent Rich a TB but he has not responded yet, I will leave this up for another day to see if there is any further discussion and then make the change (by the admittedly smallest possible consensus of 2). [[User:Pol430|<
:::The previous change was enacted by a similarly small consensus. I wouldn't worry about that. There is also [[WP:SILENCE]]. Thank you for the great work. Take care. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 10:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 79:
:::::I agree. I never thought that designing a template would be so complex. One must strike a balance between deterrence and unnecessary repetition in the message of the template, while at same time being as kind as possible to the edit-warrior. It is a really interesting problem, but ideally one may need to have a degree in Applied Psychology specializing in behavioural modification to be able to really say that they can design a good warning template. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 10:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
{{od|:::::}}More than 24hrs later and no further discussion points — changes made. [[User:Pol430|<
:Thank you for the update. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 21:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 86:
Hello, I believe that the first part of this template's warning language is far too broad for a template concerning autobiographies. There is a deletion debate going on regarding [[Adeem Hashmi]] where an editor is referencing the language in this template as a justification to argue that an article about an Urdu poet who has been dead for ten years should be considered an autobiography. Surely, other templates concerning [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:NPOV]] should be used in such situations, and an autobiography template should be used only in situations where people have written articles about themselves. I appreciate the opinions of other editors more knowledgeable about such matters than I. Thank you. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
: I'm inclined to agree with you, I think the language used in this template is misleading and needs to be tightened considerably. Would you like to make a suggestion here, on improved wording? [[User:Pol430|<
:: Thank you, Pol430. I recommend deleting the first two sentences. The remaining text should then be fine. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::: I have condensed and simplified the template considerably in an attempt to bring its message back on track. [[User:Pol430|<
:::: Well done, Pol430. Thank you. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 104:
=== Non-admin wording? ===
Would it be possible to add a switch to this template that if enabled would change the wording in the second sentence? I've used this template in the past to let people know when they've incorrectly tagged a page (when I was doing NPP), but the phrase "declined to delete" implies that I'm an administrator, which I'm not. Perhaps a change of that wording to something like "removed the tag on" instead would be good in these cases. I'm no good with template syntax but if someone else could come along and do it, it would be great. Thanks! '''[[User:Elektrik Shoos|<
:Coincidence - a couple of editors are working on a possible rewording of this now to include yours and other suggestions. You are rght however, template syntax is not everyone's cup of tea. We'll post back here when we have a suitable draft. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 09:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
{{od|:}}
Above is a copy and paste from the template talk page, which had not been redirected. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] and I are currently working on some improvements to this template. [[User:Pol430|<
: Following the discussion [[User_talk:Pol430#user_warning|here]] Kudpung and I have arrived at the following version:
Line 122:
<nowiki>{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]]}}} Hi {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]]. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|[[:{{{1}}}]]}} a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the [[WP:NPP|suggested tasks for patrollers]] and review the [[WP:CSD#Criteria|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Particularly, the section covering [[WP:CSD#Non-criteria|non-criteria]]. Such pages are best tagged with [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion]], [[WP:PRODBLP|proposed deletion for biographies of living persons]], or sent to the appropriate [[WP:Deletion discussions|deletion discussion]].<noinclude></nowiki>
Any coding experts out there that can check to see if we have broken anything? (Please see [[User_talk:Pol430#user_warning|this discussion]] for what happened to the extra params) [[User:Pol430|<
:Auotosign? [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 133:
:{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]]}}} Hi {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]]. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|[[:{{{1}}}]]}} a page that you tagged for speedy deletion,{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if: {{{2|}}} | under criterion [[WP:CSD#{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] | {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{nocriterion|no}}}|yes|without specifying a [[WP:CSD|criterion for speedy deletion]]}}}} because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if: {{{3|}}} | {{{3}}} |}} Please take a moment to look at the [[WP:NPP|suggested tasks for patrollers]] and review the [[WP:CSD#Criteria|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Particularly, the section covering [[WP:CSD#Non-criteria|non-criteria]]. Such pages are best tagged with [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion]], [[WP:PRODBLP|proposed deletion for biographies of living persons]], or sent to the appropriate [[WP:Deletion discussions|deletion discussion]].<noinclude>
@Kudpung - when you say autosign, do you mean via twinkle? If so, I think this a coded into twinkle rather than the template. [[User:Pol430|<
New code works fine, tested [[User talk:Pol430/Sandbox|'''here''']] manually with all params, and with twinkle using all supported params. Changes made [[User:Pol430|<
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|<
::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|<
== "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|<
::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|<
::::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|<
== RFC ==
Users interested in this area should be aware of [[Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Minimize talk page templates]] and may wish to comment there. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
: Thanks for the pointer, I think your comment pretty much hit the nail on the head for me. [[User:Pol430|<
== Multi-warning template ==
Line 171:
:''«Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.»''
I didn't have a block when editing 4 or 5 times on the same article in the same day. [[User:SWFlash|SWF]][[User_talk:SWFlash|lash]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: I'm not sure what question you are asking, or comment you are making? The line you quote above is from the [[WP:3RR|3rr policy]] which features in the {{tl|uw-3rr}} template. You seem to be confusing ''edits'' with ''reversions''. Also that line makes it clear that making more than three reversions ''is almost always grounds for an immediate block'' which is very different to saying ''if you make three reversions you will always be blocked''. By any measure, that line line of text is a feature of Wikipedia policy and was arrived at as a result of consensus. [[User:Pol430|<
== [[Template:Uw-delete1]] ==
What do we do if the edit is not '''recent'''? Also, what do I do if the content has '''not''' been restored (since I was not sure if the deletion was appropriate)? See [[User talk:Clucker McBawk|here]] where I modified the wording manually (without actually changing the template). [[User:-- -- --/Template:Uw-delete1 revised|Here]], I tried to create a modified version of the template. Any suggestions, please? <big>[[User:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[User talk:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]]</big> 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
: It depends how old the edit in question is, and who made it. For example, if an IP editor made the edit, and it is 3 weeks old, it is quite likely that the person now using that IP address is not the same person that made the edit. If you are not sure the removal was appropriate—and don't want to revert the edit because of that—don't warn the user that made it. Generally templates are used to advise users of inappropriate recent changes, if the issue is more complex than that, just write them a normal message, on their talk page. [[User:Pol430|<
== uw-selfrevert ==
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|<
:::: I frankly don't see how this could cause any confusion at all. I mean "undo" in the sense of what it means in plain English, not in terms of what it means in Wikipedia. (Regardless of Wiki jargon, the word "undo" would be completely accurate here.) In effect, such an edit that would provoke this warning would be the same as an undo (even if not done in the exact same way), and if somebody is new enough to warrant this warning, they won't know the difference, and surely won't become confused when they learn more about how Wikipedia works. [[User:Kansan|Kansan]] ([[User talk:Kansan|talk]]) 01:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
== Question about these templates ==
Line 189:
== PROD notice ==
I noticed that [[John Gioia|this article]] had been prodded a number of times, so I left a note on the latest prodders talk about only proposing once then going to AFD. I think this is the right place to get [[User:MacMed/PROD warning|a PROD notice]] added to the uw- template group and maybe twinkle. Let me know if I'm in the wrong place. Regards,
:This would be a single-issue notice, I presume? [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, of course. Regards,
== Third argument not working? ==
Line 208:
== Recent change to [[Template:Uw-speedy1]] doesn't work for user pages ==
See [[User talk:Ctpgroup]] for an example. It prefixes "Talk" onto "User:". ([[Template talk:Uw-speedy1]] redirected me here.) -- [[User:OlEnglish|<
:Hopefully fixed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-speedy1&action=historysubmit&diff=424999313&oldid=424411786 this edit]. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 10:23, 20 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 225:
Hello. I've been working on a new user warning. It's a [[WP:AGF|good faith]] notice for new editors who are likely to have violated [[WP:SOCK]] out of ignorance, not malice. It gives the new users a chance to get aware of the policy and cease the violations without dragging them into a stressful [[WP:SPI|investigation]]. It has already received a bit of praise on [[WP:HELPDESK]], so I think I'd let you see it as well and maybe help getting it operational. It's on [[User:Zakhalesh/Sandbox|my sandbox]] - '''feel free to edit it!''' All feedback will be appreciated. Thank you! [[User:Zakhalesh|Zakhalesh]] ([[User talk:Zakhalesh|talk]]) 06:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
:Looks good and useful. The only thing I'd change is maybe the phrase "Your editing habits" would sound better as "Your editing pattern". -- [[User:OlEnglish|<
::Thank you. I've done the change because I agree it's good. Is this template going to be "official"? [[User:Zakhalesh|Zakhalesh]] ([[User talk:Zakhalesh|talk]]) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
:::You're free to move it into template space anytime, but as far as it becoming an accepted community norm that would depend on how many use it and for how long. You may want to add it to [[Wikipedia:User warning templates]]. -- [[User:OlEnglish|<
::::Thank you - it's "online" at [[Template:Uw-agf-sock]]. [[User:Zakhalesh|Zakhalesh]] ([[User talk:Zakhalesh|talk]]) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 235:
::::Ah, a few more questions. First, it seems to screw up the user's sig if there's a space bar between the sig and the template (<nowiki>{{uw-agf-sock}} ~~~~</nowiki>). Also, should I mention this about somewhere else to get Twinkle to add it to their warning collection? [[User:Zakhalesh|Zakhalesh]] ([[User talk:Zakhalesh|talk]]) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::Ok I think I fixed the sig issue. Leave a request at [[Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/RFA]] to get it added to the Twinkle menu. -- [[User:OlEnglish|<
== Uw-block ==
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 307:
== [[Template:Uw-nor1]] ==
It occurs to me that "We ''welcome and appreciate'' your contributions" (my emphasis) might be just a bit of overkill. The message I'd like to convey to problematic but potentially "salvageable" newbies is that we welcome their ''presence'' if they're willing to adhere to the basic policies but do not welcome or appreciate some—or in some cases, all—of their ''contributions''. No doubt we want level-1 templates to sound friendly, but the current wording seems too much, almost patronizing. Imo. While separating the <s>sinner</s> editor from the <s>sin</s> edit would be ideal, I'd settle for killing either "welcome" or "appreciate". Thoughts? [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 22:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
== how come Uw-username reason failed to appear? ==
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 345:
== {{tl|uw-npa1}} tld ==
Just for info guys, {{tl|uw-npa1}} has been put up for [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_23#Template:Uw-npa1|deletion]]. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== [[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 370:
*Excellent idea. Why not 5 years ago? ~~[[User:ebe123|<span style="color:#21421E;font-weight:bold">EBE123</span>]]~~ <sup>[[User talk:Ebe123|<span style="color:#0000FF">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]]</sub> 12:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
*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|<
::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 406:
::Without quoting it, this particular edit referred to the personal life of this BLP's subject & was placed within the article. Didn't seem to be quite covered by any of the available notice templates. A parameter/space could be added to any possible template with room for additional text (like your reason ''why''), but I am definitely not any kind of an expert on templates/transclusion/coding. That's why I posted my vague idea here. If folks feel it isnt needed, then that's that. I was just wondering if something like this ''might'' be useful. Cheers, [[User:Shearonink|Shearonink]] ([[User talk:Shearonink|talk]]) 17:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
:::The cited example is perfectly covered by uw-unsourced which provides: ''Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.''
:::[[WP:TONE]] redirects to [[Wikipedia:Writing better articles]]. As a linguist, I interpret 'tone' in our context to be the ''level of language'' used. Traditionally, encyclopedias are written in a tight, formal style without being overly intellectual or academic and hard for readers to understand. Informal language (magazine and/or spoken stye), such as the use of contractions, referring to bio subjects by their first names, and addressing the reader as 'you' are certainly inappropriate, as is of course 'teen-talk' and the language used by rappers and garage bands and their fans. Not everyone is able to communicate in a formal tone, so there is certainly a need for some kind of uw template, but as a single issue notice. Tone is something regular users here or the GOCE can easily clean up, and warnings for tone should not be served up to reprehend. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 413 ⟶ 412:
There have come to my attention that {{lt|Uw-hangonnocsd}} might be valid for inclusion in the official list of user warnings. Anyone for or against this? I know the template might need to be cleaned up before inclusion. <sub>→[[User:AzaToth|<span style="color:#773">Aza</span>]][[User_talk:AzaToth|<span style="color:#359">Toth</span>]]</sub> 21:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
:I can see this being helpful, as I've warned a couple of people about using hangon tags during AfDs (I couldn't begin to tell you why they were). [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::I thought the hangon template was now deprecated since the use of the new CSD template with its 'contest' button. Or am I missing something? --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
:::It is, but like the expand template people still sometimes add it for some reason; if you remember [[Jamiroquai concerts]] or [[Agnes Obel concerts]], the creator used it on one of the PRODs. That being said, its usefulness is severely decreased. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<
::::Perhaps we should TfD it? It probably only serves to confuse the newbs. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 02:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
== Warning recission ==
Line 428 ⟶ 427:
It might also make the user feel better to be in the community and more at home, which is always pretty necessary.
It's just an idea and I'm open to criticism of it, however I would certainly appreciate your opinions in this matter. Thanks vm - '''[[User:Thecheesykid|<
'''Edit''':
:: [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Welcome to Wikipedia. The previous warning template concerning this edit [Edit] to the article [Article] was added here in error, and the warning has now been rescinded. Thank you for your contribution.
'''[[User:Thecheesykid|<
:This kind of seems like a solution looking for a problem. Whenever I've applied a warning template in error, I've simply removed the erroneously-applied template and apologized in the edit summary, and that was the end of it. No need for a templated public apology. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 07:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:: I've done the same, but we're thinking of speed, we could always write down a message saying that they've vandalized, but we add a template because it's faster. Also, as I've said, it can break some comment paths, such as if the user writes underneath the warning and you remove it, the path of conversation is now broken. '''[[User:Thecheesykid|<
:::In that case, you can strike through the warning and apologize below. Besides, do you ''really'' screw this up enough to need a template? Again, a quick "whoops, didn't mean to do that" seems to take less time than a template. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 08:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:::: Hmmm fair enough, it ''was'' just an idea... '''[[User:Thecheesykid|<
:::::I agree. It doesn't (or shouldn't) happen very often, and a personal note if far nicer than template. You can could use a pre written text that you can store in your user sub pages. It would always be your own personal message. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 03:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 459 ⟶ 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 491 ⟶ 490:
[[Image:Information icon4.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]]{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read [[WP:Your first article|the guide to writing your first article]].</p><p>You may want to consider using the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
Hello <nowiki>{{revisionuser}}</nowiki>, thanks for creating, '''[[:Cars (franchise)]]'''. Unfortunately, we already have a page about this at '''[[:Cars (film)]]''' and your article may soon be deleted (if it hasn't been already). You are most welcome to expand the existing article, but do remember to add [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for your new additions.
If you think your article should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," on the article's deletion message and leave your comments on the page that opens. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom -->
Line 502 ⟶ 501:
:::No, I have no itention of changing CSD policy - I just want to be bold and change this well intended but ridiculous wall of text . I need to know is where it is. Are you able to answer that question, as template experts? Thanks.[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 06:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::: I Agree that this is the best venue for discussing this change and support Kudpung's slimmed down version. The original is far too unwieldy. [[User:Pol430|<
:::::Finally located it. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Line 512 ⟶ 511:
:::::*A Twinkle option should be included as a single issue uw rather than only the automated placement by the Twinkle CSD A10.
:::::In spite of my knowledge of templates, I have tried, but I am unable to unwrap this body text from its parent templates and additional contingent template calls. This is a technical and communication issue and does not concern the policy for deletion at [[WP:CESD#A10|CSD A10]]. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 01:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I think you mean <nowiki>{{basepagename}}</nowiki>, as using <nowiki>{{revisionuser}}</nowiki> will be replaced by the name of whoever sent the message. --<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Σ|The Σ]] <sup>[[User talk:Σ|talk]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Σ|contribs]]</sub></span> 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
== uw-notvand ==
Line 546 ⟶ 545:
== {{tl|uw-disruptive2}} and {{tl|uw-controversial2}} ==
Hi all - apologies if this is the wrong place to note this, but I can't find a talk page for [[WP:UW]] for some reason (they all seem to redirect here). A template I made after a request a couple of years ago was taken to WP:TFD but survived when I explained the reason for it - it seems it has never ben listed with WP:UW... {{tl|Uw-controversial2}} is similar to {{tl|disruptive2}} (hence its name, which allows for a potential range of levels), but where uw-disruptive2's text assumes that the addition was deliberate and incorrect, uw-controversial2 assumes the edits were made in good faith and does not assume that they were an incorrect addition to the article, only one where there was potential to open old edit-war wounds or similar. A perfect example might be a new editor changing the word "Gdansk" to "Danzig" in an article, or "China" to "mainland China". The potential for an edit war developing in these cases is great, but the editor who made the initial edit would not necessarily know that. Rtather than describing their edit as disruptive, it simply says that it may be construed that way by some editors. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
:Ah, yes, the unintentional act of, as [[Stephen Colbert]] might say, sticking one's penis into a hornet's nest, and warning someone that they may be doing so.
Line 553 ⟶ 552:
:Here's what I'm going to do. First, I'm renaming this template to {{tl|uw-controversial}} since it's apparent that this is single-issue. Then I'm going to tone down the wording just a little. After all, we don't want people to put various body parts in dangerous places, but at the same time, we need to be a little nicer about it. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 16:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::Fair enough - thanks :) [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small
== Proposed behavioral template ==
Line 593 ⟶ 592:
== Sanction-specific 1RR user warning ==
I got tired of writing personal messages to the many users I work with who are unaware of, or who pretend to be unaware of, the [[WP:General sanctions/Abortion/Log|1RR]] on abortion articles, so I created a user talk page template. How does [[Template:Uw-1rrAbortion|this template]] look? And may I begin using it, or does it have to be formally approved or something? –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]]
== New templates uw-subtle1 and uw-subtle2 ==
Line 660 ⟶ 659:
:There's certainly value in having both around. Since 3RR is a line-in-the-sand rule and disruption via edit warring can be more widespread but doesn't necessarily have to break 3RR, both have value in keeping around. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 13:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
::A block for 3RR is a lot less ambiguous than a block for edit warring—it's much easier to say "I wasn't edit warring" or "you can't block me, I only reverted X times", but if you violated the 3RR, you're banged to rights. I use both on a regular basis, and I know quite a few other admins do. There was a discussion about this a while ago which I believe resulted in a consensus not to do away with uw-3block. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<
:::The previous discussion can be found here: [[Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 11#Assume good faith on uw-3rr]]. [[User:Heymid|<span style="color:green;">Hey</span>]][[User talk:Heymid|<span style="color:red;">'''''Mid'''''</span>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Heymid|contribs]]) 16:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Actually that's about uw-3RR, not uw-block. I had to do quite a bit of digging but I found the discussion I recalled: [[Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 11#Merge uw-block templates for edit warring and 3RR]], where thee other admins (not including me) opined in favour of keeping them separate. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<
:::::I actually meant that section; thanks for correcting me. [[User:Heymid|<span style="color:green;">Hey</span>]][[User talk:Heymid|<span style="color:red;">'''''Mid'''''</span>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Heymid|contribs]]) 17:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::It's good to have both templates available. In practice I tend to use uw-ewblock even in plain 3RR cases, but other admins may have a different preference. In the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Archive_11#Merge_uw-block_templates_for_edit_warring_and_3RR previous discussion] linked above [[User:Protonk]] said he would rather use uw-3block for a case of ten reverts in 20 minutes. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Line 697 ⟶ 696:
:''" For [[WP:C|legal reasons]], we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. However you may use external websites or publications as a [[WP:RS|source]] for your information."''
:Let me know, if it's too succinct? Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::Still not explicit enough. I ''am'' seeing copyvio in user sandboxes, and especially lately from a pool of student-editors who are generally having problems (albeit often well-intentioned) with the copyvio policy in general. The same editors are also seemingly prone to image copyvios, which are harder for NPP to detect. In a previous semester, I saw several students create a hopeless copyvio (including images and text) in sandbox and then gradually change it to make article content or to use it as an online pile of notecards while writing. But we can't tolerate copyvio even as a work-in-progress and this edit pattern also could make the result tainted as a derived-from-copyvio (but at least easy to detect!). What finally brought me here was after talking to some [[WP:IEP]] ambassadors about the situation...again even when hitting students over the head with the template when reverting their article edits, they just switch over to the same problematic edits in sandbox-space. Just working the phrase "anywhere on Wikipedia" into the warning would be a big improvement IMO. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 16:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
:::OK no problems, and thanks for clearing that up. I'm off out for a while if someone else doesn't give a proposal I'll take into account the explicit everywhere, and tweak it later on. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::One of the issues on the IEP is that contributors are now apparently using locally published textbooks as their sources, possibly in the knowledge that we have no means of checking the hard copy. A further problem is that all across Asia there is culturally very little concern for plagiarism. Even the textbook authors do it, and their publishers are only concerned with the book sales. One only needs to go into any of the many bookshops on Connaught Place and browse through a few volumes on the same subject. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 08:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
{{unindent}}OK how does this fit your needs? Please feel free to tweak it and let me know. Regards <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
Line 716 ⟶ 715:
::Yes, I have seen plenty of cases here in Asia where content has been ripped from Wikipedia. especially in text books, and in graduate and post graduate theses. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
:Not sure it's necessary to differentiate between registered and IP. Deliberately mentioning pasted and typed takes it more towards text when the same applies to images, and there's no needs to list the sources where it may have come from in my opinion. The basis of the template should keep to the basic fault, and we use the parsered extra comments to give detail to the template if required. Sorry to sound so negative. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::My concern is that the phraseology adequately address the needs of users for wh m English is a second language, and in whose culture there is little regard for the importance of respecting copyright. We have very recent instances where users from the IEP have been blocked and simply continued under an IP address. I had to block an entire faculty at one stage. FWIW I have worked in education in India. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Line 724 ⟶ 723:
:::<nowiki>{{subst:uw-copyright|User talk:Naughty Student|Please be aware that this warning also applies to copying your homework into your userspace.}} ~~~~</nowiki>
:::Honestly I'm not being obtuse, it's just I would prefer to see templated warning not being directed to specific cases as that was the reason the optional statement was parsered into the warnings. Though I do agree with DMacks original point and think we should put my version or a slightly reworded version in place to cover that, then we look at the student issues, let me know what you think? Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::I stated my reasons above. Unless you have experience in patrolling hundreds of new pages, you may not be aware of the situation. However, as someone who has worked in various non-English countries you may have some understanding that the language must be clear, and at a level that non-English speakers understand. It also helps io achieve a mean language level for comprehension in regions of very different cultural perception. . These are not children we're talking about, they are university students and their teachers. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 13:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::All I can do is apologies as you have misinterpreted my intention and level of knowledge of the subject. All I was suggesting was to try and not to use the templates main text for specific issues and keep the general text generic. Please make the change you see fit. Regards <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::::No worries. I won't be deciding what get used anyway. It's always been difficult to get user-centric templates drafted. By the time most editors start drafting prose for warning messages, they've forgotten what it was like to be a newbie ;) [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 15:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::That's just because Wikipedia has changed, [[User_talk:Khukri#Template_testing|5 years ago yesterday]] about 10 of us managed to write some 200 odd templates in under a month, the chance of doing that these days would be damned near [[WP:BIKESHED|impossible]]. All the best <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
{{unindent}}Wikipedia has indeed changed, but I don't think it's as dire as all that :)
Line 738 ⟶ 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 744 ⟶ 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 751 ⟶ 750:
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] '''Do not remove block notices while a block is in force'''. Removing the block notice from your user talk page while you are blocked can be a sign of [[WP:TEND|tendentious]] or [[WP:DIS|disruptive editing]] and may result in the block being extended.
Any thoughts? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub
:That's possibly the stupidest policy subsection we currently have, mainly because the "consensus" formed for it was among a load of people who, for the most part, don't understand the purpose of a block notice. But still, if we're going to have a template for it, there's no need for it to be so aggressive. A simple "you're not allowed to remove that" would suffice, because if they're doing it just to be disruptive, they'll soon find themselves without talk page access. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<
::Is that even policy? I'm doubtful. I think a template for it is silly. If you're going tell someone they shouldn't remove something from their talk page (it's not tendentious and the disruption is mainly caused by the reverter) you should have decency to explain the real reason for it if you can come up with one. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 19:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Alright. :) It was just a pondering thought. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub
::::Whether or not an editor can remove a(n active) block-notice from his own talk-page is a long-standing topic of debate. Last I knew, there was a long-standing (albeit contentious) guideline that editors ''were'' allowed to remove it unless they were contesting it (anyone who cares could know about the block, but if discussing the block important to see what is being discussed). However, apparently that has now changed and even uncontested block-messages must remain. I think? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
:[[WP:CAIN]] comes to mind here. If someone uses an {{tl|unblock}} template, they are presumably blocked, and it's not hard to check out why. Please keep in mind that a blocked editor cannot edit pages other than their own talk page, and I don't see how the removal of a block notice constitutes ''by itself'' disruptive editing of one's own talk page. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">''' Blanchardb''' </span>-<sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup>- timed 17:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Line 763 ⟶ 762:
== Template color ==
Just out of curiousty, why is the "username soft block" warning (uw-ublock) template orange backgrounded, while "promotional username soft block" (uw-softerblock) is blue? The blue is more in line with the "softer" part, I'd think - shouldn't all the softerblock templates be blue? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub
== Child friendly messages ==
Line 817 ⟶ 816:
That seems to more accurately match the statements at the policy page. I would also like to add the statement:
#You may still be blocked for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
These two proposed changes can be considered seperately for discussion if you all prefer. Any thoughts or ideas? --[[User:Jayron32|<
:I think there's a lot we can take from {{tlx|uw-ew}}.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 03:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::I personally wouldn't mind merging the two templates; I have never actually used the 3RR template and never reference it ever when warning a user or blocking a user for edit warring; but I do recognize that many people do use the template and reference the policy page; I just feel that since we do have the template, the text should more accurately reflect the policy page it references. --[[User:Jayron32|<
:::I've had to use both templates on different occasions. Anyway, the proposed changes look good, but why remove "almost always"? ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><
::::Language which indicates a programmatic response to behavior (action A results in consequence B) gives the false impression that blocks are programmed "punishments" metted out for specific "offenses", and implies that humans are not necessary to read and interpret a situation and make good judgements about when to issue a block and when not to. While, absent any of the standard exceptions, 3RR usually results in a short block, there are too many variables involved to say "always" or "almost always" (in such a case, the qualifier "almost" is a useless word; most people read that as "always"). I am uncomfortable giving the impression that blocks are punishments, and the current wording gives an impression that 3RR is some "crime" for which a block is a semi-automatic "punishment", rather than giving the correct description, which is 3RR is an indication of potential disruption to the proper working of the encyclopedia, which an administrator may be asked to investigate to see if a block is an appropriate response to stop said disruption to return the encyclopedia to good working order. That many, or even most, 3RR events result in blocks is for me irrelevent in a ''warning''. Ideally, if someone has been warned, they should not be then blocked instantly if they have not committed a further violation (i.e. all users should be given the chance to heed a warning). The 3RR text, as it reads now, implies that the warning is a precursor to the coming block, and that such an event is inevitable. We should, instead, always give the warned user a chance to self-correct, and by changing the wording from the stern "almost always grounds for an immediate block" to "may result in a block", the less-stern wording gives the warned user the correct impression, which is that the block is not necessarily forthcoming if the user instead changes their behavior. --[[User:Jayron32|<
:::::Well said! Blocking exists to prevent further disruption. We're not out to "get" someone or "get rid of" someone with blocking. The revised template doesn't give the impression that anyone's hands are tied regarding a specific course of action, and likewise, it indicates that there is discretion in the process. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 02:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::I agree, the current wording gives a very "automated" impression, and could be taken to mean that Wikipedia's server automatically blocks any user that makes more than three reversions within 24 hours, when this is obviously not the case. I would suggest that "may result in a block" be changed to "will very likely result in a block" or something along those lines, to make it more clear that if they do not heed the warning and continue to make reversions past 3RR or continue to do so without discussion, that a block is likely, not just possible. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 02:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I still don't like "will very likely". The idea behind a word like "may" is that it is value neutral; it doesn't predict likelyhoods. The warning template doesn't need to indicate the odds of a block coming, it just needs to let the user know that their behavior is disruptive and what action may be taken to stop the disruption (for the record, a template isn't even needed for this, but that's a discussion for another day). That's why I specifically chose a word like "may" (a word like "could" might also be a good alternative, but it doesn't seem to be much of a difference). --[[User:Jayron32|<
::::::::Agreed with Jayron32 again - this is the same reason we changed the level 4 and 4im warnings to say "you will be blocked from editing" to "you may be blocked from editing". It doesn't prescribe an automatic course of action that will then make us potentially look bad if the allegedly automatic action is not taken. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}
Line 830 ⟶ 829:
:I think that's why I proposed the second addition, reminding people that they may still be blocked for edit warring (as an aside, your description of people believing in an entitlement to 3 reverts per day is '''exactly''' why, for years, I have never mentioned the 3RR situation in any warning or block. Since 3RR is a subset of edit warring behavior, and edit warring is itself enough to merit a block, then I don't find any use of mentioning 3RR. But that's neither here nor there). What about rewording the template completely, something like this:
:*"Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]], or that you may have already broken it. '''Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a [[WP:BLOCK|block]].''' If you wish to avoid being blocked, please go back and undo your own last revert, and instead of reverting, use the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]] to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. You may still be blocked for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates you intend to continue to revert repeatedly."
:This captures the essense of 3RR, allows editors an "out" where if the undo their own last revert and immediately go to discuss, they can avoid a block (as recommended at [[WP:3RR]] and reminds them that they may still be blocked even if they do not technically violate 3RR. Ideas? Comments? Tweaks? --[[User:Jayron32|<
::I'm very tired, so I'll come back to respond to it when I'm more awake to respond, but while I was thinking about it I wanted to suggest that perhaps the part of 3RR, where it says "''Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.''" should be mentioned in some form on the template, because I can't count how many discussions at [[WP:3RRNB]] have been something along the lines of "well I didn't violate 3RR because I was only reverting part of it". I think if that is mentioned in the template it would maybe cause less edit warring, because confusion about that part seems common. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 15:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Instructing someone to undo their own revision, no matter how well-intentioned, feels like we're treating our editors like children. Refer them to the discussion page and request that they discontinue the behavior - fine. Explicitly tell them to undo their own last revert - no. We're not in elementary school, folks, and there are no "teachers" in this group. Besides, it will still be [[meta:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] for someone. Better for all parties to just put down their weapons and stop editing the article altogether and head to the talk page. As long as the edit warring has stopped and all are sitting around the table discussing, then there's no need for a block of anyone, after all. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 16:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty, let's try this on for size:
*"Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]], or that you may have already broken it. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. '''Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a [[WP:BLOCK|block]].''' If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]] to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. You may still be blocked for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates you intend to continue to revert repeatedly."
Made both of your suggestions. How's this one look? --[[User:Jayron32|<
:I like! A couple more copyedits and I think we've got it:
Line 851 ⟶ 850:
::::That looks great, I can't find any fault with it. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 03:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Excellent. I've changed the template, and am going to notify Twinkle's userbase. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 16:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
{{Thumbs up|Dig it!}}. Excellent job to everyone involved. This is how collaboration is supposed to work. --[[User:Jayron32|<
=== Section break for post-change discussion ([[Template:Uw-3rr]]) ===
Line 917 ⟶ 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 926 ⟶ 925:
When a user inserted ''The Creator of the Earth made the earth'' into [[History of the Earth]], none of the existing templates seemed to convey what I wanted to say, so I winged it with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:107.25.12.151&oldid=466092849 this message]. Should we add a series of templates that would be appropriate for responding to this kind of edit? [[User:Peter Chastain|Peter Chastain]] ([[User talk:Peter Chastain|talk]]) 02:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
: Why not? :) I'm not in favor of creating unneeded templates, but I think you have identified a genuine gap in the current collection. [[User:Pol430|<
::{{tl|Uw-npov1}} would seem to be appropriate. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
::I'm inclined to agree with Zaphod: a simple NPOV warning is all that's needed here. --[[User:Orangemike|<
== [[Template:Uw-disruptive4im]] ==
I'm not sure that this template's message is supported by the block policy in relation to disruptive editing. Was there any discussion prior to the creation of this template? I can't see anything obvious in the talk page archives. opinions? Perhaps a candidate for TFD? [[User:Pol430|<
:I think it'll go there immediately. When we're at level 4, there's not much of a difference between disruption and vandalism. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">''' Blanchardb''' </span>-<sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup>- timed 03:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:It's [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 24#Template:Uw-disruptive4im|right here.]] --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">''' Blanchardb''' </span>-<sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup>- timed 03:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks, although I have removed the links, in the table, to the vandalism templates because the disruption templates were designed to specifically deal with disruptive editing that is not vandalism. By including links to vand4 and vand4im I feel that sends a message: that continued disruptive editing becomes vandalism automatically. Which, according to [[WP:DDE]], it does not. [[User:Pol430|<
== 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 957 ⟶ 956:
Edited [[User:SmallCheez|SmallCheez]] ([[User talk:SmallCheez|talk]]) 05:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
: It sounds like you may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] or [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]]. Where content disputes are concerned it is often best to hand-type a message to the user in question. Templates can often make these sorts of situations worst. [[User:Pol430|<
*Ah, thank you very much. I knew that templates involved code, and I'm terrible at code (even copying and pasting; sadly I manage to get something wrong), and just typed out messages. Glad to know I did the right thing even though I didn't know what it was. Anyways, it hasn't happened since the last revert, and hopefully, it won't happen again until the content can be confirmed (or denied). Same IP= Dispute resolution; different IP= "Please don't do that" (and then Dispute Resolution if repeated).
[[User:SmallCheez|SmallCheez]] ([[User talk:SmallCheez|talk]]) 23:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Line 975 ⟶ 974:
:::::Sorry. I didn't notice that the wording is merely encouraging IPs and users to be bold. [[User:Bulldog73|Bulldog73]] [[User talk:Bulldog73|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Bulldog73|<small>da contribs</small>]] [[Special:Random|<sub>go rando</sub>]] 07:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
{{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|<
: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|<
:::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|<
:::::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 988 ⟶ 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|<
{{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)
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APol430%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=468084559&oldid=418012268 seems to work fine] I have tidied up the white space slightly. We should probably look at Huggle version of this template too. [[User:Pol430|<
:: I've updated the Huggle version of this template also [[User:Pol430|<
:::The new wording assumes the test edit was an article. I'm going to have to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emilgjoka&diff=469539466&oldid=469539296 fix up] the message half the time I use it. -- [[User:John of Reading|John of Reading]] ([[User talk:John of Reading|talk]]) 17:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,009 ⟶ 1,008:
:For info: Another template with an optional message to advise users to leave an edit summary is {{Tl|PrevBtn}} [[User:Fred_Gandt|'''<span style="font-family:arial;color:#055;font-size:16px;">f<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">red</i>g<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">andt</i></span>''']] 11:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:: The change suggested by [[User:Peter Chastain]] seems fairly uncontroversial; I was about to go ahead and make the changes, but I'm having difficulty incorporating the suggested sentence around the existing parser functions. Can anyone more savvy with parser functions find a work around? [[User:Pol430|<
:::Figured it out, and fixed. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
== Change to Template:Uw-copyright ==
Line 1,015 ⟶ 1,014:
I reverted the recent change to this template, because a short clear text had been replaced with an essay-ish explanation of copyright concerns that duplicates content of [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], which is sufficiently linked in the original message. "send the pertinent authorization notice from the address associated with the site manager" and "our policy regarding copyright is non-negotiable" does not belong in a notification. "If it's not wrong, don't fix it" applies here in my opinion. [[User:Hekerui|Hekerui]] ([[User talk:Hekerui|talk]]) 21:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
:Quite right and well spotted [[User:Pol430|<
== Warning for inserting personal information ==
Line 1,022 ⟶ 1,021:
I was hoping there would be a warning template such as "''Please do not add personal information about unencyclopedic people or groups to articles...''" but I don't seem to be able to find one here on en.wiki. (As a reference, I was looking for something along the lines of [[:it:Template:Date personali|this one on it.wiki]]). Thanks, --[[User:Mark91|<span style="color:blue">Mark91</span>]]''<small>[[User talk: Mark91|<span style="color:black;">it's my world</span>]]</small>'' 14:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:I would use either {{tl|uw-unsourced2}} or {{tl|uw-error2}} personally. [[User:Pol430|<
== uw-coi wording ==
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 1,041 ⟶ 1,040:
:''(I was redirected here from [[Template talk:Uw-bizlist]]'')
"Wikia's [[Yellowikis]]" site doesn't seem to exist anymore (at least not at that URL). I've changed the link to point to http://wikicompany.org/ .. No objection if someone wants to remove the site suggestion part altogether. -- [[User:OlEnglish|<
== Uw-sandbox ==
I just happened across the {{tl|uw-sandbox1}} template message series. They are at the moment broken in various ways, but I don't think they are useful in the first place. Opinions?<br />[[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#832">Amalthea</span>]] 18:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
:They do seem to be overshadowed by other uw templates. However, I was comparing uw-sandbox2 to uw-vand2, which does say "If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." Perhaps that should be clarified? It would be confusing to get a uw-vand2 template telling you go to to the sandbox to make the edits, and then to get a uw-sandbox template for doing exactly what uw-vand2 suggested. I know [[WP:Sandbox]] has the message saying "Please do not place copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in the sandboxes." but it [[WP:AGF|may be overlooked]], they may see "Welcome to the sandbox, here's how to edit, blah blah blah" and think "I know how to click Edit, so I don't have to read all this. *skip*" and miss the part about offensive/libelous content. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
== Additional parameter for user warning templates ==
Line 1,052 ⟶ 1,051:
Is there a user talk page template for users who engage in retaliatory reversion? In other words, if user A makes inappropriate edits that get reverted by user B, user A retaliates by reverting some of user B's good edits. If there isn't, should there be a template for this? [[User:Mwalimu59|mwalimu59]] ([[User talk:Mwalimu59|talk]]) 16:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
:I'd say that's just plain disruptive editing. If we created a separate template for every kind of disruptive editing, it would just add to the clutter. Use a generic template, and state in your edit summary what you feel the problem is (mindful of [[:WP:AGF]] and [[:WP:NPA]], of course). --[[User:Orangemike|<
== New user template ==
I have created a template {{Tl|W-screen-static}} to serve the same purpose as {{Tl|W-screen}}, but without the blinking logo. I would like to add it to [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]]. [[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]] ([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]]) 15:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:{{done}} [[User:Pol430|<
== {{tl|Uw-bizlist}} needs update! ==
The template is outdated since wikicompany redirects now to a private blog and thus not likely not coming back. [[User talk:Mabdul|<
:{{Querylink|Template:Uw-bizlist|qs=&diff=486813463&oldid=479082989|Done}}. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 13:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,072 ⟶ 1,071:
:Fixed the template, without comment as to content. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 00:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::
== WP:sandbox vs MyPage:Sandbox ==
Line 1,118 ⟶ 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.<
:It appears like you are saying that with content removal comes a removal of the references associated with the content. In that instance, it is unnecessary to clarify that the references should not be removed because it was a content removal at its core. If there are specific examples of references exclusively being removed then a new warning should be created warning editors not to remove references. I believe the combination of the issues here is unnecessary because they are for two entirely separate events.<
== Close paraphrasing warning ==
I've just created a mock-up of a user warning template for [[WP:PARAPHRASE|close paraphrasing]] at [[User:Mr. Stradivarius/Uw-paraphrase]]. Do people think this is a good idea? Would it be suitable to move it over to template space? Let me know what you think. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♫]]</sup></b> 14:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
: The first paragraph doesn't flow well, so far as it concerns "copyrighted text". Otherwise, that looks good, and I don't see a reason not to make it a proper UW. [[User:AGK|<
:: I had a go at updating it, and I've moved it to {{tl|uw-paraphrase}}. It could probably still use some tweaking or rewriting, so if anyone wants to edit it, go right ahead. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♫]]</sup></b> 13:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,134 ⟶ 1,133:
{{Tl|uw-vandalism4}} and {{Tl|uw-vandalism4im}} threats seem pretty meaningless. They are often posted on user talk pages by people who are not administrators and therefore cannot back up their threats. And the templates do not add the user pages to any category that might alert administrators. I have seen [[User talk:Alexbee13|one case]] recently where a last warning was immediately followed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geomagnetic_reversal&action=history further vandalism to the same page]. What is there left to do for a non-administator? Post a notice saying "I mean it. Put that mouse down. Put it - are you listening to me?" [[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]] ([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]]) 17:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
:Those are important ones because vandalism after one of those warnings is a qualification for a report to [[WP:AIV]].<
::In other words, the admins who monitor [[WP:AIV]] won't act unless they see they offending user has been warned sufficiently. —[[User:Al E.|Al E.]]<sup><small><em>([[User talk:Al E.|talk]])</em></small></sup> 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I have given out a few dozen warnings and have never heard of this process. Perhaps some documentation should be added to the templates describing what to do if the "Final warning" doesn't work. [[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]] ([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]]) 17:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I like the idea of adding that to the documentation. Editors using the templates would certainly want to be familiar with [[WP:AIV]]. I'm not exactly sure how.<
In the case I referred to above, there is the added complication that someone has been rather hasty in giving final warnings. What is the best approach to that? [[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]] ([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]]) 17:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
: {{tl|uw-tempabuse1}} ?? ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<
:This is a situation where I think it would be better not to use a template but rather leave a personalized message. There are a couple of reasons that I don't think a template should be used. First, the instances are pretty situational. Second, the editors leaving vandalism templates are normally regular contributors so it would violate [[Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars]].<
::O.k., I left a personal message, and added a {{Tl|uw-vandalism2}} warning on the vandal's page (pretending that the previous message was level 1). It looks a bit silly, but documents the vandalism. [[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]] ([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]]) 18:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
:::In cases of egregious vandalism, it's not necessary to go through the templates in order. Read up a bit more at [[WP:VANDALISM]]. —[[User:Al E.|Al E.]]<sup><small><em>([[User talk:Al E.|talk]])</em></small></sup> 18:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,174 ⟶ 1,173:
If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the '''[[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]''' instead. Please take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to [[Wikipedia|this encyclopedia]] or, if you have a question about editing, ask at [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Wikipedia's Help Desk]].
Gives them somewhere specific to go to ask questions instead of them having to hunt for the proper way to do whatever they're trying to do. --[[User:NeilN|'''<
:Support. Since the Help Desk isn't linked from the welcome page or the sandbox, this seems sensible. It probably could just say "the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help Desk]]"; that's the construction I use when I write a personalized note to a newby. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 17:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,205 ⟶ 1,204:
{{od|10}} That sounds good to me. We definitely need to convey the imminence of a possible block somehow. If we can strike a balance between that and giving good and friendly advice on what to actually do in an edit war, then I'll be happy. I think we can safely bold the "'''very likely to result in a block'''" part as well. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 16:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't wan't to scare them by threatening a block '''in bold'''. Also, I don't think that anyone doesn't care about a block and even if they don't care, they will be blocked just like any editor who violates the 3RR, and the block will stop them from edit-warring for a period of time (however long the Admin sets the block for). [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 22:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} I think the idea of [[:Template:uw-ewsoft]] is a good one, but it's too long (TL;DR). Cut it down to less than half that size. Templates need to kept short and sweet. I support the idea of a softer version that can be classed as single issue notice. Keep the stronger version, ([[:template:uw-ew]]) for [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] situations, as a single issue warning. [[:template:uw-3rr]] could be redirected as no longer needed. [[User:Pol430|<
:: I've condensed that warning down in my sandbox, see [[User:Pol430/Sandbox6]]. [[User:Pol430|<
:::I think we've done a good job with the new warning, so when do you guys want to publish it. Also, can we make it available on [[Wikipedia:Twinkle|Twinkle]]? Thanks! [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 00:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I think the wording in your sandbox is still a bit much, it feels like it has too much of a accusatory tone. I think the current version at [[:Template:uw-ewsoft]] isn't too long, because it contains enough information that new user would need to know in an edit warring situation. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 16:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Ok, I've given [[:Template:uw-ewsoft]] a little copy edit and resolved the non-section redirects. I support its use and integration to Twinkle. [[User:Pol430|<
{{od|5}} I see that the part about finding consensus was removed. I think we need to say ''something'' about consensus in the warning, though - if we want this warning to really be effective in stopping new users from edit warring, we need to show them what the alternative is. Is there support for adding a shorter sentence that mentions consensus to the end of the first paragraph? How about this: "Instead of edit warring, please try and find a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] on the [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]]." Let me know what you think. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 15:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:That looks good, I think it's vital that we mention consensus. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,216 ⟶ 1,215:
===Three edit warring templates===
We've got three basic templates for edit warring now, and I wanted to see if maybe we should redirect uw-3RR into uw-ew, since the uw-3RR template seems somewhat redundant? - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
:Yes I think that's a good idea, although the 3rr template is used by twinkle, so it would be a good idea to get one of the twinkle devs to remove that warning from the drop down list and replace it with ew-soft (in the single issue notices section rather than the warnings section). [[User:Pol430|<
Before I ask for that to happen, does anyone object to it? - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 00:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:No objections. [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 14:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
::Agreed, I think this is a good idea. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 15:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
::: Now {{done}} [[User:Pol430|<
*Wait, so now you can no longer warn someone specifically for violating the 3rr rule? That is a pretty big change in practice, and I think its a bad idea. The 3rr warning is such a bright line rule, while edit warring is less clear, it makes a straight 3rr warning much clearer and less subject to dispute. Also, if it stays, documentation at places like [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] will need updating. [[User:Monty845|<
::::What's up with the update to Twinkle? [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 17:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
*:Also, the target of the redirect doesn't even mention the 3 revert rule. The template is in no way redundant. [[User:Monty845|<
*::Twinkle has 2 edit warring warnings, but neither is explicit enough about 3RR for my liking. People aren't going to understand this and may feel mistreated. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
::::The template {{tl|Uw-ewsoft}} makes mention of [[WP:3RR]] in a softer fashion. If mention of 3rr were inserted into {{tl|Uw-ew}} would that resolve the concerns? It seems that 3 templates on the matter of edit warring is a bit much. We don't want a situation where people are using these as 'incremental' warnings. Of all the templates in the Uw- series the edit warring related templates have been subject to the most controversy and change. They were both heavily revamped last year. [[User:Pol430|<
:::::{{tl|uw-3RR}} is certainly a last warning template, and is in most cases followed up immediately by a report to [[WP:ANEW]] if ignored. It could be merged into {{tl|Uw-ew}}, but then you run into the issue that its grouping a bunch of different conduct together, and its not as clear what specific conduct the person is being warned about. Keeping them separate ensures that if you get a 3rr warning, you know without ambiguity that you have been warned for 3rr, and there is no question that it may have been a more generic edit warring warning. See also [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Revised_proposal:Proposal_to_ban_instant_blocking_for_all_editors_over_3RR_unless_a_warning_has_been_issued_first]] which if adopted would very much hinge on a specific 3rr warning. [[User:Monty845|<
:::::: Fair point and thanks for the pointer to that VP proposal. Although, violating 3rr comes about through edit warring, and both templates contain a fair amount of mutual language. Perhaps it is {{tl|uw-ew}} that should be redirected to {{tl|uw-3RR}}. Leaving {{tl|uw-ewsoft}} and {{tl|uw-3RR}}? [[User:Pol430|<
{{unindent}} What do you guys think about merging our new template with one of the pre-existing ones? [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 21:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:I don't really see how that is relevant to the discussion at hand!? [[User:Pol430|<
::Redirecting that way seems less objectionable, but I still prefer the separate warnings that differentiate what the person is being warned for. The uw-3rr does include some none-3rr edit warring language, but is clearly a warning to stop someone from committing/continuing a 3rr violation, and throws in the warning about the more expansive definition of edit warring to discourage gaming. For instance, we maintain a variety of very granular warnings based on other types of conduct, for example {{tl|Uw-vandalism3}} and {{tl|Uw-disruptive3}}, while it would be simple to merge them, there is utility in having the warning be as specific as possible to the conduct being warned for. [[User:Monty845|<
:::How can we add this template to Twinkle? [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 21:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Some admins may prefer to give one warning rather than another (3RR rather than EW, or vice versa). Regular editors can also give the warnings, and I don't see why their freedom ought to be restricted. Eliminating one of the warning templates is a bit like forbidding people from doing the warning you personally don't use. We tolerate a diversity of views on how best to warn, and nothing has changed recently in the [[WP:EW|edit warring policy]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::I have re-added uw-3rr to [[WP:UTM]] and single notice links. I'll see if the Twinkle devs will put it back into the drop down menu. [[User:Pol430|<
:::::I think that we should be able to choose which of the 3 templates we would like to use for that particular situation. [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
{{unindent}} Hey guys! I was trying to warn someone for edit warring and then I saw our warning as one of the options on Twinkle and used it. Great job! [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 23:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,240 ⟶ 1,239:
== Question ==
Is there a uw template for using non-free images outside of articles and userspace? [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust, B.Ed.]] [[User talk:Armbrust|<sup
== Extrapace in template ==
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
::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 1,273 ⟶ 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 1,290 ⟶ 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 1,302 ⟶ 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 1,328 ⟶ 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 1,347 ⟶ 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 1,364 ⟶ 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 1,390 ⟶ 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 1,404 ⟶ 1,403:
::Yes, particularly if the template included wording about the request failing to be brief. I don't know what the usage numbers might be but creating one would largely be a product of using the wheel, not inventing, it right? What's more, editors requesting a RfC for the first time look to [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All]] as an example, perhaps more so than the instructions on how to word a request, and editors are coming to RfC more often than not due to deadlock or after intense discussion, and sometimes that verbiage is carried over into the requests. Anything that can help get the message across would be appreciated. [[User:Zepppep|Zepppep]] ([[User talk:Zepppep|talk]]) 05:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
::I'm not involved in creating these templates, but I think Fuhghettaboutit is right. It sounds too automated. It seems like a more personal way of getting around to it is best. If you're trying to defuse a situation, a personal touch is always the best route. I realize that Fughettaboutit's motive may have been slightly different. I'm not trying to speak for you! [[User:Lighthead|<b><
:::Agreed, while template messages are valuable for dealing with new users consistently, when it comes to more complex applications of policy such as RFC neutrality, a more personalized response is really needed. Perhaps indicating the specific verbiage that is the problem, and how it could be worded more neutrally or otherwise brought in line with policy. [[User:Monty845|<
::::Personal touches can be included with a template by utilizing "additional text" space. But thanks for your guys' thoughts. [[User:Zepppep|Zepppep]] ([[User talk:Zepppep|talk]]) 05:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
== [[Template:Db-attack-notice]] needs modification ==
This template needs a tweak. Specifically the function that links to the nominated article needs to be removed. What we are doing now is saying " you have created a completely innapropriate page that should not exist. Here are handy pointers that will be forever preserved on your talk page so people know who you were attacking". In this one and only case, linking to the soon to be deleted article is not appropriate. I recently had to take several suppresssion actions related to the use of this template because, as is often the case with attack pages, even the title itself was not appropriate. I have tried to remove the function myself but apparently I don't know how to do that. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
:What about piping all references to the page and using a generic descriptor like, [[Test|This page you created]]. While it would still leave the attack page name in the wikicode, it would not be visible. [[User:Monty845|<
::That would be even worse actually because in a case like the one I recently encountered it was important to completely remove the article title from Wikipedia to the extent that it could not be seen even by administrators. Having it hidden in the code but not visible on the page would mean potentially libelous statements would be preserved there and oversighters would probably not catch it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
::: To create an accurate but inoffensive link, you could use a full URL to link to the deleted page by its <code><nowiki>{{PAGEID}}</nowiki></code> using the <code>?curid=''nnnnnn''</code> parameter, or to link to the most recent <code><nowiki>{{REVISIONID}}</nowiki></code> of the deleted page using the <code>?oldid=''nnnnnn''</code> parameter. For example, to link to the latest version of this page without using the page title: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&curid={{PAGEID}} (The magic words do not seem to support automating the IDs for other pages other than the ones on which they are used, but the REVISIONID value can be seen in the "Permanent link" URL in the margin of each page before it is deleted.) — [[User:Richardguk|Richardguk]] ([[User talk:Richardguk|talk]]) 22:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,420 ⟶ 1,419:
When notifying users on their user talk page after a page they have created is tagged for speedy deletion as an [[WP:ATTACK|attack page]], should we include a link to the page in the notice or in the edit summary? Please answer '''Yes''' or '''No''' and include your rationale. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 16:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''No''', absolutely not, per Beeblebrox above. Not infrequently the title itself is an attack - "''X, the gayest w****r in Blankville''" and the like - and even if not, the title usually contains the name of the person attacked. On no account should that be left visible. The existing {{tl|uw-attack}} is fine, and Okeyes has agreed at [[Wikipedia talk:Page Curation#Warning attackers]] to use that for the new Page Curation system. Reading lower down, I see that maybe the header for the warning is the issue, but for attack warnings the header too must '''not''' link the article title. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
*Beeblebrox makes some strong points, but at the same time, I think it is important to identify as clearly as possible to an editor being warned what exactly it was they did wrong. While very few creators of page that are tagged G10 are acting in good faith, in the event that they are acting in goodfaith, notifying them that some page they created or contributed to has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, but not giving them any way to know which page it is (without having the expertise to check the contribution history of the notifier or something of the sort), gives them no recourse and doesn't educate them as to which action they took was problematic. In essence, it assumes a G10 nomination getting deleted is a fait accompli. I still would like to find a middle ground; what about having a different template message for page names that are themselves G10 level attacks, while having a link to the nominated page when the page title is not offensive in and of itself? If it had to be a yes/no vote, I'm not sure which side I'd come down on. [[User:Monty845|<
::If a page is actually deleted per G10 that mans two pairs of eyes, tagger and admin, agree that it is an attack. The response time on attack pages is usually fast enough, thanks to the little red bar on the admin dashboard, that it is very unlikely the page author will not know what page is meant. Page authors often do question the deletion - a frequent line is "''It was a joke! He's my friend and doesn't mind!''" I think the risk that a good faith contribution is deleted as an attack and the author doesn't know which page it was is negligible, compared to the danger of leaving on view in talk page notices the names of people attacked, linked with the fact that they have been the subject of an attack. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 19:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''No'''. I can see the benefit in linking, but it seems a possible risk. I'd like to think our oversighters can manage the "what links here" tool, but that still leaves time with the link (arguably unnecesarily) on the page. I would say that the most commonly used templates (such as the ones Twinkle uses) should not link. If there is a question by the (accidental?) vandal later, then editors can always put a link if necessary and appropriate. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] ([[User talk:Nouniquenames|talk]]) 18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''Temporary yes''' (explanation of ''temporary'' included): the primary role of the notice is to provide an editor with a right of objection in case of questionable validity of rationale (is there anybody here who have never seen improper speedy deletions?). Still, once this content is deleted, only the secondary role of the warning — notifying that creation of such pages is unacceptable — remains relevant. Thus I propose to use <nowiki>{{#ifexist}}</nowiki> parser function to display the link until the content is deleted and replace it with generic phrase once deletion came to effect. The links remains visible in source code, which IMO is acceptable compromise between editors' right to contest deletion and target's right to defend itself from such content. And I'm absolutely sure that it is ''inappropriate'' to link attack pages in edit summaries under whatever circumstances: edit summaries are ''ways'' more visible, and linking attack pages isn't necessary in all cases. I would strongly support short term global bans for such edit summaries. — [[user:czarkoff|Dmitrij D. Czarkoff]] ([[user talk:czarkoff|talk]]) 10:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
::I think David's suggestion here is the right solution--it gives the information, and avoids leaving a record of it. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''NO''' When I was active, I would link to the article but hide the name of the article so it would not be seen. I never put the name of the article in an edit summary. I went so far as to redact the page name from the templated warning left by the tagger. Didn't think of the "what links here" feature at the time. Lie the concept of giving the information while avoiding leaving a visible trail.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <
*'''No''' per Beeblebrox, nothing wrong with giving the unlinked name, providing the name is not also an attack, in which case leave that out, too. I have never seen an editor create an attack page and then not know what article we were talking about. If it ever happens, we can explain. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup></small> 21:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
::Even giving the unlinked name leaves on public record that this person was the subject of an attack. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 22:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,431 ⟶ 1,430:
*As with Beeblebrox I'll add my '''no''' position as well. If the creator has no idea why their attack page was deleted they can ask the person who left them the message or the admin who deleted it. I don't see a reason to, in any way, link (or state the name of) the attack page. '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 08:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Six years ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAttack-warn&diff=91923163&oldid=86699328 I removed the parser function from Template:Attack-warn] for the same reasons.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 02:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:: Indeed. Like Template:Attack-warn. [[User:Dlohcierekim| <
== [[Template:uw-vandalism1]] - new wording ==
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 1,461 ⟶ 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 1,468 ⟶ 1,467:
I wanted to let you know that [[Special:Contributions/{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|your recent contribution]]{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}| to [[:{{{1}}}]]}} has been reverted because...
:::: Note that both wordings use the first person voice (Hello, I'm <includeonly>[[User:{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:REVISIONUSER}}|{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:REVISIONUSER}}]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]]</noinclude>. I wanted to let you know...)
:::: <big>[[User:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[User talk:-- -- --|'''--''']] [[Special:Contributions/-- -- --|'''--'''
{{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 1,483 ⟶ 1,482:
:::''If you prefer to be unblocked for the purpose of changing your username<u>, so that your contributions with this username are recorded under your new username,</u> rather than creating a new account, you may appeal this username block ...''
:::If anyone can think of better wording (particularly "under" please suggest it). '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 08:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
::Looks good.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <
:::Agreed, that would make it more clear that appealing the block is not needed if they just want to move on with a new name. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,495 ⟶ 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 1,523 ⟶ 1,522:
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you restore defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further notice.'''
*Material can be defamatory, true, and well sourced all at the same time. If this is going to be a separate waring from the BLP violation, it needs to emphasize that the problem with the defamatory content being restored is NOT that it is defamatory, but that it is defamatory AND inadequately source. [[User:Monty845|<
:What's the problem with the current defamatory series templates (eg {{tl|uw-defamatory2}})? '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 16:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
::This eliminates the BLP angle for non-BLP content restored. --[[User:Nouniquenames|<
== 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 1,539 ⟶ 1,538:
*[[:Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names]]
*[[:Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for spamming]]
Your comments are appreciated.
<!-- archive me 12:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC) -->
== Ideas for Sandbox ==
Line 1,554 ⟶ 1,553:
What's going on? [[User:Toccata quarta|Toccata quarta]] ([[User talk:Toccata quarta|talk]]) 05:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:You must subst the template by typing <code><nowiki>{{subst:uw-test1}}</nowiki></code>. '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, </span
::I see now; thanks! [[User:Toccata quarta|Toccata quarta]] ([[User talk:Toccata quarta|talk]]) 06:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
== Removing tags ==
Line 1,560 ⟶ 1,559:
Do we have a warning template to use when an editor removes a properly placed "citation needed" tag? I thought there was one, but am not seeing it, Thanks <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 18:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
:I think Twinkle has one. [[User:Mlpearc|<
:: Thanks - I don't use Twinkle, but I may have seen the warning on someone's talkpage. If anyone has a pointer to such a post, I'd like to have it, as it does come up from time to time. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 19:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,571 ⟶ 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 1,596 ⟶ 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|<
::::::::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|<
{{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)
:::::BTW: I also find that the friendliness when addressing vandalism is OTT. Delinquency is never done in good faith. There are no objective extrapolations to be made from this kind of AB template testing. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::Even the afore mentioned ''level 0 vandalism'' template (which is good to use for warning editors you did not revert) begins: {{xt|Hello, I'm Fylbecatulous}}. Which I decided to live with since I prefer to use that template although I'm always the one who reverted the article I'm cautioning about. <b>[[User:Fylbecatulous|<
== Ambiguous phrasing uw-unsourced2 ==
When we include an article title as the 1st argument in [[:Template:uw-unsourced2]], the first sentence reads: {{quotation|Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources as you did at [[Article]].}}
While the meaning is clear that the user failed to verify an edit somewhere, it's not clear whether the user verified or failed to verify the edit at [[Article]]. I think it would be less ambiguous to write the warning as follows: {{quotation|Please do not add or change content as you did at [[Article]] without verifying it by citing reliable sources.}}
[[User:Jojalozzo|<
:I've been bold and changed the template you your suggested wording. '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 05:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,635 ⟶ 1,634:
{{quotation|Hello, I'm Jimbo. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please take a look at our guidelines about links. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.}}
Any other thoughts? [[User:78.26|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:red; padding:1px;background:1h5h1h
: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|<
: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 1,658 ⟶ 1,657:
The [[Template:Uw-attack|Uw-attack]] template reads "Please do not create pages that [[Wikipedia:Attack_page|attack, threaten, or disparage]] their subject…" In many cases an attack article doesn't disparage (etc) ''its subject'', it uses an article (often a very poor one) to disparage something else, for instance I've just deleted as [[WP:CSD#G10]] an article entitled "Biceps tendon rupture" which "explained" how ruptured biceps tendons were common amongst amenians (sic) due to their "weirdness". This obviously wasn't an attack on ruptured biceps tendons; it was an attack article nonetheless. The warning template should be re-worded to make it plain that attack articles of any kind are not allowed, even if they happen not to be a direct attack on the subject of the article. [[User:Tonywalton|Tonywalton]] <sup>[[User talk:Tonywalton|Talk]]</sup> 23:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:A somewhat belated response: How about replace "their subject" with "things" which would be a catch-all phrase. The only difficulty is that [[Wikipedia:Attack page|the policy]] mentions "their subject" specifically. So, there is some potential for policy wonkery with such a change to this template. We could change the wording for the policy as well, but with recent instability on the talk page, concerning the page's very status as a policy, I sense much Wikidrama ahead... [[User:Pol430|<
:Personally I don't see a reason to change it, it seems to be a cosmetic change which doesn't achieve a lot, sorry if that sounded a bit abrupt or rude I didn't intend it that way. Plus I could make an argument that "amenians" were one of the subjects of the article. '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 08:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Line 1,670 ⟶ 1,669:
== [[Template:Uw-tdel1]] ==
Can this template be used for new user who deleted <nowiki>{{Fact}}</nowiki> template? ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jews_in_the_Middle_Ages&diff=prev&oldid=531637792 Case in point].) The reason I'm asking is because neither that template nor similar ones are listed at [[Wikipedia:Maintenance templates]]. (Perhaps someone should add it there?) <big>[[User:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[User talk:-- -- --|'''--''']] [[Special:Contributions/-- -- --|'''--'''
:Yes, it can be used for that purpose. But it's a user warning template, so it shouldn't be listed at [[Wikipedia:Maintenance templates]]. I've restored the cn tag in question; feel free to warn the user if you like. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 21:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::{{done}}. <big>[[User:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[User talk:-- -- --|'''--''']] [[Special:Contributions/-- -- --|'''--'''
== 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|<
:::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|<
:::::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|<
:::::[[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|<
::::::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|<
::::::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|<
== Template:uw-notenglish ==
Should it direct the warned the user to the corresponding Wikipedia? [[User:FrankDev|FrankDev]] ([[User talk:FrankDev|talk]]) 03:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:That template is used for editors that create foreign language pages, but appear to have enough comprehension of English to translate, or obtain a translation, of the page. Foreign language pages have not necessarily come from an other-language Wiki. If you are looking for a template that steers editors, who do not understand English well enough to contribute here, to their native language version, there are a series of suitable welcome templates [[WP:UTM#Foreign-language contributors|here]]. [[User:Pol430|<
== 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 1,706 ⟶ 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 1,722 ⟶ 1,721:
Another user an I posted to a user page [[User_talk:Moraspirit]] within a few minutes of each other. When I posted a few minutes later it somehow changed the content of their post to include my username: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moraspirit&oldid=535699808 dif]
It has since been solved by the other user copying the wikicode of the template manually but I thought it maybe worth a mention in case a bug exists somewhere. <
: The page history suggests that it was right first time. One thing worth noting, however, is that the other editor had originally forgotten to subst the template. He corrected that after your edit. - [[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 15:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Line 1,748 ⟶ 1,747:
== Wikidata ==
[[User:Addshore]] has created a few templates to be used to educate people about [[WP:WIKIDATA|Wikidata]] now being live. They can be found at [[:Template:uw-wikidata-del]], [[:Template:uw-wikidata-add]], and [[:Template:uw-wikidata-revert]]. They are for when people either: remove interwikis without them being present on Wikidata; add interwikis to Wikipedia when they should be adding them to Wikidata; and when someone reverts attempts to remove interwikis that are present on Wikidata. Could they be added to this page in order for them to receive greater use and thus help increase Wikidata awareness? Cheers [[User:Delusion23|'''<
:Does the Wikidata logo need to be that big? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 16:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
::Not at all, feel free to change it. [[User:Delusion23|'''<
:::OK, I made all three 50px high, instead of 100px wide (uw-wikidata-del) or 150px wide (others). This is still twice as tall as the logo of {{tlxs|uw-date}}, one of the mildest of "crimes". --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 19:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
== Civility warning ==
Line 1,803 ⟶ 1,802:
::I'm afraid you've completely missed my point. The brutal reality (outside the lala-land of AGF at all costs) is that in the vast majority of vandalism cases all we really need is for the vandal to <s>fuck off and die</s> go away, because the vandalism is most often not a good faith editing "error". I object to my username being so prominently displayed as the first wikilink in the template message because the issue is not about me, it's about the article and the actions of the recipient of the warning. [[WP:NOTSOCIAL|Wikipedia is not Social Media]], personalities are completely irrelevant - building the encyclopedia is about process, "please leave your personality at the door". [[User:Dodger67|Roger]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 14:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I've got no problem with my name being first link [[User talk:120.42.28.67#March 2013|here]]. I deliberately started at level 1 and the guy didn't get it. Whether the uw-messages work or not is another matter... --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 15:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I've always thought that it was better for a disruptive editor to be disruptive at my talk page then for them to continue to disrupt articles. If including the personal part of the message results in that, I think its an added bonus. Further, if an editor really is acting in good faith, and talking can sort out the issue, we should be willing to talk at pretty much any place on-wiki to do it. [[User:Monty845|<
:Roger, just for reference in case you we arrived at the current wording after about six months of controlled testing through WikiProject User Warnings, and an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings|30-day RFC]] to discuss the templates that performed best in testing. I understand that vandalfighters don't all feel comfortable being "in the spotlight" so to speak, but here's a few points we learned through the whole testing and rewrite project...
# Many new and anonymous editors have a hard time understanding that they were reverted by a person, another editor like them, not a software system like a bot. Our signatures aren't enough, and that's why the language was generally changed from totally impersonal, passive voice to a first person voice and an invitation to talk.
# 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 1,825 ⟶ 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>}}
<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)
::{{Done}} (with a couple other small formatting diffs). <
== Edit request ==
Line 1,856 ⟶ 1,849:
<code><nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Template:Uw-test1]]</nowiki><br />{{red|*<small><small>WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE <big><big>'''ERASE'''</big></big> THE TEXT ON THIS LINE & LEAVE THIS LINE BLANK.</small></small>}}<br /><nowiki>{{Redr|from warning template|from template shortcut|protected}}</nowiki></code>
Template {{tl|Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{tl|This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – [[User:Paine Ellsworth|<
:
::You're the <big>''<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">most</span>''</big> ! <small>(from coast to coast!)</small> – [[User:Paine Ellsworth|<
== Requesting clarification. ==
Line 1,899 ⟶ 1,892:
:::::: Try [[WP:COMMONSENSE]]. You're obviously lacking in it. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo|talk]]) 16:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}
Sounds as if you two could use a [[WP:wikibreak|wikibreak]]. The answer to your question is in the policy at [[WP:CON]]. Wikipedia is chock full of learning experiences. Please let this be one for both of you! – [[User:Paine Ellsworth|<
*The bottom line is that there is not consensus for the changes. It should stay as it is. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 15:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Line 1,908 ⟶ 1,901:
:::* Begin a discussion on the talk page and talk up your ideas.
:::* Be bold and make the changes, which, if disliked by other editors, should then be discussed on the talk page.
:::But most of all, try to have fun with it, because neither you nor your hecklers ''have'' to be here. And you never know when your edits might actually be positively transforming. – [[User:Paine Ellsworth|<
:::I've been asked for clarification about this sentence: "{{color|darkred|I want to say that I'm neutral about your changes; however, the second one isn't true.}}"
:::*{{gi|Do not edit articles about yourself, your business, or your competitors.}}
:::''Please see [[WP:COIU|Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest]]'' – [[User:Paine Ellsworth|<
== 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)
== Addding sig parameter to user warning and notice templates? ==
Would it be possible to add an optional <code><nowiki>|sig=yes</nowiki></code> parameter to the templates listed at {{tl|Single notice links}}, in the manner currently employed for [[:Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Blocks|user block template]]s? '''[[User:It Is Me Here|<
: Additionally, I think that all of the templates that [[WP:TW|Twinkle]] applies to talk pages should automatically sign. [[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]] ([[User talk:Technical 13|talk]]) 22:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Line 1,944 ⟶ 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 2,057 ⟶ 2,050:
:I have fixed '''all''' the templates that have images that require attribution. Please do '''not''' revert prior to contacting me. [[User:Ramaksoud2000|Ramaksoud2000]] <sup>([[User talk:Ramaksoud2000|Talk to me]])</sup> 03:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
::You didn't need to add the image names... you just needed to remove the empty {{para|link}} parameter, that being the code which had forced a de-link. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 09:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Indeed. The images also [[Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Links and attribution|neded alt text]] for [[screen reader]] users like myself, which I've just added. I've also added alt text and links to {{tl|Uw3}} for consistency. I accidentally discovered this problem while warning a user for adding unsourced text. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''
== COI user-warning template, part 2 ==
Line 2,064 ⟶ 2,057:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-coi&oldid=542053183 Currently], the {{tl|uw-coi}} template includes four points of advice:
* Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
* Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
* Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see [[Wikipedia:Spam]]).
* Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
</div>
In the first point, "{{color|#666600|Exercise great caution}}" is vague and can be misinterpreted. The phrase "{{color|#666600|you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with}}" is too wordy.
Line 2,075 ⟶ 2,068:
I propose that it should instead include seven points of advice, adapted from [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]'s [[WP:PSCOI|guide]] with help from [[User:Paine Ellsworth|Mr. Ellsworth]]:
* You need not declare your conflict of interest, but we recommend it.
* Do not edit articles about yourself, your organization, or your competitors. Do not edit related articles. [[Wikipedia:COI#Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest|(Exceptions.)]]
Line 2,083 ⟶ 2,076:
* Have us review your draft.
* Work with us and we'll work with you.
</div>
The proposed text provides advice which is more specific and therefore easier to follow. For example, "{{color|#666600|Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies}}" is a vague reference to [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:COI]]. The line "{{color|green|Your role is to summarize, inform and reference — not to promote, sell, or whitewash}}" is better: it summarizes both policies.
Line 2,125 ⟶ 2,118:
Am I right in thinking that the number of warning templates has greatly increased over the last few months? The current number is overwhelming, and really tiresome to navigate. Many of the templates seem overly specific as well (as examples, do we really need standard messages for 'Incorrectly formatting disambiguation pages', 'Overly hasty tagging of articles for speedy deletion' and 'User page in inappropriate category'? These are all unusual circumstances where a personalised message would be much more more appropriate). At very least this page needs a list of 'frequently used templates' or similar. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 08:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
:It would appear that over the last few months almost no new templates have been added; unless I'm missing somthing? If you feel a template is unnecessary or no longer useful then you can create a new discussion at [[WP:TFD|TfD]] and suggest its deletion. [[User:Pol430|<
== uw-biog set of warnings ==
Line 2,186 ⟶ 2,179:
Could we have {{tl|uw-vandalism1}} modified to read something like: "Hello, I'm xxx. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!"
Any thoughts? [[User:PamD|<
: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? ==
I have just discovered a bug (feature?) in the {{tl|uw-advert}} template (which I presume is a common bug/feature in all of the uw-xxx templates). If the original warner forgets to subst the template, then the name in the warning ("Hello, I'm <name>...") changes whenever a different editor posts a message after the original warning. Thus, if user A warns user B, and then user C comes along and makes a completely unrelated post on user B's page, the template will be now read "Hello, I'm C..." when it should read "Hello, I'm A". I don't know if the subst bot is smart enough to fix this error by examining the page history and replacing the correct name, or if will just leave whatever name happens to be there by the time the bot updates the page, but in either case, even a temporary misattribution seems to be a bad bug.
:Yes, this is because it uses the {{tlc|REVISIONUSER}} [[H:MW#Variables|variable]], which indicates the editor at last edit. If you subst: the user warning template (as all of them should be), the {{tlc|REVISIONUSER}} gets substituted as well, so the name is fixed. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 15:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
== Missing shortcut - {{tl|Bv}} ==
Line 2,228 ⟶ 2,221:
*If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the {{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|[[{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}TALKPAGENAME:{{{1}}}}}|article's talk page]]|article's talk page}} before reinserting it.
Please take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. {{{2|Thank you.}}}<includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam1 notices|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}</includeonly>
Think this one is better. [[User:DDreth|<
== Uw-cia series and Uw-talkinarticle redundant ==
Line 2,267 ⟶ 2,260:
::Agreed, that's pretty silly. It seems much more likely to [[WP:DNFT|feed them]] than frighten them. You'd be better off using the standard {{tl|uw-vandalism4im}} warning or something similar. --[[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] ([[User talk:Bongwarrior|talk]]) 18:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
:: Yeah – I'm afraid that, while evil and malicious could pass as reasonable inferences from behavior, "malodorous" is just [[WP:NPA]]. No way to know that over the 'net (yet) {{Smiley}} <
:::See [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 22]]. And David, this is the second time in a few days I have seen you do something aimed at "evil," the other being your attempt to ban all usernames that even theoretically contain a reference to Satan. You might want to rethink your approach to such issues. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Line 2,279 ⟶ 2,272:
Shouldn't there be guidelines on who is allowed to post the highest level of warning and also that an earlier warning must be given (and explained) before a fellow editor is threatened with a ban? If this exists already, please point me in the right direction because I see more instances where template messages are used incorrectly (as blunt instruments) than where they are used appropriately. [[Special:Contributions/69.125.134.86|69.125.134.86]] ([[User talk:69.125.134.86|talk]]) 13:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:Generally the progression is 1-2-3-4, yes. But experienced editors may choose to skip a level or two (or give an only warning) based on the situation - Wikipedia is not some rigid bureaucracy. And don't forget earlier warnings could have been deleted. If an editor is abusing templates the best thing is to bring it up with them and then go to [[WP:ANI]] if the behaviour doesn't change. As to your other point, I looked at a few templates and they all say "may be blocked". What template says "will be blocked"? --[[User:NeilN|'''<
== uw-test series ==
We now have a test page for Visual Editor users: [[User:Sandbox]]. Can we come up with appropriate wording to direct VE editors to this page? --[[User:NeilN|'''<
== Unblock review-related templates ==
Line 2,312 ⟶ 2,305:
I have created [[Template:Uw-puf-remove]], a new user warning template for removing the {{tl|puf}} template, by analogy with [[Template:uw-copyright-remove]]. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 19:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
== {{tl|uw-vandalism1}} ==
{{strikediv|1=
It currently reads 'I undid one of [[Special:Contributions/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|your recent contributions]], such as the one you made to {{{1}}}'. There has been some discussion of this and I'm surprised no grammatically correct solution was accepted; the current wording makes no sense. I thought it still had the perfectly sensible 'one or more', actually. I have heard the argument that 'one or more' makes it seem as if we are saying that 'your contribs all suck, who knows how many got reverted' - but, by that same logic, one might say that the wording 'such as' implies 'your contribs all suck, who knows ''which one(s)'' got reverted/to which page you contributed to/etc.'. Am I the only one who sees this?
My point is not that it actually ''does'' come off that way, but that if it is phrased this way now and not causing any problems, we might as well introduce another piece of wording that might have the same implication but at least makes it make sense - that is, to say 'I undid one or more [...]'.
To be grammatically correct, the template would have to say (roughly) 'I undid one or more of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to {{{1}}}' or 'I undid one of your recent contributions that you made to {{{1}}}'. It has been argued that the latter wording is too terse. I don't see the logic for this, however.
So which one should we go with: nonsensical and grammatically flawed, possibly too 'brushing-off', or too 'terse'? I would like to see us adopt wording that makes sense. [[User:Cathfolant|Cathfolant]] ([[User talk:Cathfolant|talk]]) 01:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, on re-reading what I wrote I think 'one [...] such as the one' is actually an ok grammatical structure. I'm not always sure about these things...in any case, however, I think we should possibly provide for the instance of warning after reverting more than one contribution. If 'one or more', which would convey this nicely, is truly unacceptable we should include some sort of parameter. [[User:Cathfolant|Cathfolant]] ([[User talk:Cathfolant|talk]]) 01:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That is, something to the effect of '<nowiki>I undid {{#ifeq:{{{1|one}}}|several|several|one}} of [[Special:Contributions/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|your recent contributions]]{{#if:{{{2|{{{1|}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{1|one}}}|several|, such as the one you made to [[{{{2}}}]]{{#if:{{{3|}}}| with <span class=plainlinks>[{{{3}}} this edit]</span>}}| that you made to [[{{{1}}}]]{{#if:{{{2|}}}| with <span class=plainlinks>[{{{2}}} this edit]</span>}}}}}} because {{#ifeq:{{{1|one}}}|several|they|it}} didn't appear constructive.</nowiki>'. How does that sound? Half-decent? [[User:Cathfolant|Cathfolant]] ([[User talk:Cathfolant|talk]]) 01:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
}}
I have no idea what prompted me to write all that rubbish. The template does in fact say 'one or more'. [[User:Cathfolant|Cathfolant]] ([[User talk:Cathfolant|talk]]) 01:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
== Block template replace to {{tlx|BlockNotice}} ==
Can someone delete existing block templates and merge into this: {{tlx|BlockNotice}}?
The coding should look like this:
{{collapse top}}
<pre>
== Block Notice ==
<div name="Deletion notice" class="boilerplate metadata" id="delete" style="background-color:#fee; margin:1em; padding:0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
[[File:Stop_x_nuvola.svg|75px|right|alt=|link=]] Hello. Due to your recent actions, you have been blocked by an administrator. In other words, blocked means you cannot edit or create pages, or upload images. The reason for this block is shown below:<br />
:''{{{1|[[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]] violation. No specific reason has been provided.}}}''<br />
This block will last for:<br />
:'''''{{{2|No block length provided.}}}''<br />
During this block, you will not be able to edit any page or upload any images on Wikipedia. Once the block is over, you will be able to resume to editing and your normal abilities. Please be careful in the future and review the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]].<br /><br />If you feel this block was unfair or unjust, you may post a message below this one saying why you feel this block was unfair and an administrator will review it.<br /></div>
<noinclude>
== Usage ==
'''Only administrators should be using this template.''' This template is for letting blocked users know that they have been blocked, why they have been blocked, and the length of their block.
If you are going to use this template, be sure you fill all fields shown in bold below:<br />
<code><nowiki>{{Subst:BlockNotice|</nowiki>'''Policy violation'''<nowiki>|</nowiki>'''Length of block'''<nowiki>}}~~~~</nowiki></code>
'''EXAMPLE:'''<br />
{{BlockNotice|Vandalism|1 week}}[[User:Administrator|Administrator]] 00:00 January 1, 2011
'''CODE USED:'''
<code><nowiki>{{Subst:BlockNotice|Vandalism|1 week}}[[User:Administrator|Administrator]] 00:00 January 1, 2011</nowiki></code>
</pre>
{{collapse bottom}}
Here's the final look it should look like:
=== Block Notice ===
<div name="Deletion notice" class="boilerplate metadata" id="delete" style="background-color:#fee; margin:1em; padding:0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
[[File:Stop_x_nuvola.svg|75px|right|alt=|link=]] Hello. Due to your recent actions, you have been blocked by an administrator. In other words, blocked means you cannot edit or create pages, or upload images. The reason for this block is shown below:<br />
:''{{{1|[[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]] violation. No specific reason has been provided.}}}''<br />
This block will last for:<br />
:'''''{{{2|No block length provided.}}}'''''<br />
During this block, you will not be able to edit any page or upload any images on Wikipedia. Once the block is over, you will be able to resume to editing and your normal abilities. Please be careful in the future and review the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]].<br /><br />If you feel this block was unfair or unjust, you may post a message below this one saying why you feel this block was unfair and an administrator will review it.<br /></div>
<noinclude>
[[User:Tariqmudallal|Tariqmudallal]] ([[User talk:Tariqmudallal|talk]]) 22:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
:{{not done}}. Please open a broader discussion such an [[WP:RFC]] if you want to make this change, which is not nearly as minor as you seem to think. At the very least you should provide some hint of a reason why this would be desirable. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
::Also, "In other words" reads confusingly and is a superfluous phrase. Words other than what? If the change were to proceed, I would suggest a rewording to: "Being blocked means you cannot edit or create pages,..." [[User:Hertz1888|Hertz1888]] ([[User talk:Hertz1888|talk]]) 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
== Seeking comment regarding possible new warning template ==
I think we need a warning template at multiple levels for users who added excessive plot detail to articles. Any comments or suggestions? <span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.5em 0;"><span style="background-color:#F82;border-radius:1.5em 0 0;"> [[Special:Contributions/DKqwerty|<span style="color:#FFF;">DK</span>]]</span>[[User:DKqwerty/T|<span style="color:#D60;">qwerty</span>]] </span> 04:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)<br/><small>If I missed an already-existing template for this, I apologize and just point me in the right direction.</small>
:I don't think that this is suitable for templated warnings. Gratuitous problematic editing like vandalism, content removal, test edits etc are the right thing to use templates on. Such editors aren't worth wasting a great deal of effort on. Unlike vandalism, writing excessive plot details takes a degree of editorial effort, so first of all it is not likely to be done at a prolific rate. It is not going to be particularly onerous to give an individual human response. Secondly, good-faith editors who have put such effort into their contributions to the encyclopaedia deserve better treatment. We should not be discouraging them with template warnings, we should talk to them as fellow editors. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<span style="background:#fafad2; color:#C08000;">Spinning</span>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<span style="color:#4840a0;">Spark</span>]]''' 18:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
== transclusions ==
Please link this to a definition.
[[Special:Contributions/109.155.70.221|109.155.70.221]] ([[User talk:109.155.70.221|talk]]) 21:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Transclusion]]. But where is this not linked? The word doesn't appear at [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
== Uw-coi ==
{{tl|Uw-coi}} does not work very well on an IP talk page. The username and history substitutions do not get substituted. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:198.185.18.207&diff=prev&oldid=574491522 Example]. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<span style="background:#fafad2; color:#C08000;">Spinning</span>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<span style="color:#4840a0;">Spark</span>]]''' 18:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
:But you didn't substitute it, as can be seen from your diff... [[User:Jared Preston|Jared Preston]] ([[User talk:Jared Preston|talk]]) 21:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
::Strange, I thought I had copy and pasted from the documentation page. Never mind, my bad. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<span style="background:#fafad2; color:#C08000;">Spinning</span>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<span style="color:#4840a0;">Spark</span>]]''' 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
== Uw-agf templates ==
I've just discovered that we have the warning templates {{tl|uw-agf1}}, {{tl|uw-agf2}}, and {{tl|uw-agf3}}. Is it just me, or are these templates counterproductive? To me, it seems to be a failure of AGF to put one of these templates on another editor's talk page. If we were really assuming good faith, wouldn't we just leave the editor a message asking them what was wrong? I worry that the only real effect of these templates will be to make the templated editor angry or annoyed, rather than helping to guide them toward following our behavioural guidelines. With behavioural issues like this I'm a big fan of the theory that we should be leading by example, and I think these templates might set a bad precedent here. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 15:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
:Yes, these templates seem kind of ironic, but so does the {{tl|uw-tempabuse}} series. How does my proposed {{tl|uw-agf4im}} template sound:
:{{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|<span style="color:black">['''talk to me''']</span>]] 00:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
{{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)
:I'd just like to clarify that I agree with Mr. Stradivarius. I'm sorry if my comment came off as a bit immature. [[User:Ginsuloft|Ginsuloft]] ([[User talk:Ginsuloft|talk]]) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
== uw-block discussion ==
[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#template_uw-block|on AN]] <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 02:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
| |||