Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 16: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace) (bot |
m Fixing Lint errors from Wikipedia:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31) Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] |
||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 38:
:Aside from our [[Wikipedia:Five Pillars|Five Pillars]], [[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes|we also have remedies]] that can help you avoid further mistakes you might cause in the future. We hope your insights continue to improve our encyclopedia, and remember that '''even if you tend to avoid making mistakes, it doesn’t mean they won’t occur again.''' Thank you.
[[User:StormContent|<
== Skipping warning levels ==
Line 63:
== Propose merge of AfD, CfD, FfD, and MfD cascades ==
I'm proposing to merge the AfD, CfD, FfD and MfD cascades into one XfD cascade to stop users from deleting Deletion Discussion templates and comments-- All four of these cascades just clog up the chart and I think merging would definitely improve readability and usability. [[User:StormContent|<
== Propose to change photo on [[Template:Uw-disruptive3]] ==
Line 84:
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-ublock-double|answered=y}}
Change <code><nowiki>{{unblock-un|user=your new username here|reason=your reason here}}</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>{{unblock-un|your new username here|your reason here}}
</nowiki></code> as having <code>user=</code> doesn't auto populate new username while renaming.
: {{Not done}} I've fixed the rename link instead. — [[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] <small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 02:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Line 158:
== Removal of "My Talk" ==
In the warning it directs users to the warning editors talkpage, if I'm warning them I would prefer to send them to say the help desk as to avoid vandalism on my talk page. And any vandal with decent knowledge of Wikipedia would know where to leave me a message. [[User:A 10 fireplane|<span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;"><b>A 10 fireplane</b></span>]] [[User_talk:A 10 fireplane|<sup><span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;">Imform me</
:Talking about [[Template:Uw-blank1]]
::Vandals don't have questions generally. This has come up before, I suggested the same thing about removing it as I remember. Don't think it matters much. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 06:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
:::{{yo|DIYeditor}} ok, I was just wanting to avoid vandalism on my talk page, I suppose your right tho. None has occurred yet [[User:A 10 fireplane|<span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;"><b>A 10 fireplane</b></span>]] [[User_talk:A 10 fireplane|<sup><span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;">Imform me</
::::Agree with {{u|A 10 fireplane}} 100%. [[Template:Uw-vandalism1]] used to invite would-be vandals back to the vandal-fighter's user-talkpage. After some effort (and aggravation), I was able to [[Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 15#request a slight change|get that changed]] about a year ago. It's come up before, more than once, that numerous editors will just start with a level 2 warning to avoid "the invite". But a look at all these notices shows that some have an invite to the poster's user-talkpage, while others just simply direct the recipient of the notice to the [[WP:HD|Help Desk]]. I think they should ''all'' go to the help desk. Thoughts? - [[User:Thewolfchild|<span style="color: black">wolf</span>]] 01:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
::::[[User:A 10 fireplane|A 10 fireplane]] - Warning message templates and notices should ''always'' provide a link to your user talk page so that recipients can easily see who its from and reach out to you if necessary. This is important, not because we care about vandals and trolls having the ability to find you and wreck your user talk page, but (much more importantly) in the event that you accidentally warn, notify, or revert the edits by a legitimate good faith user. They need to be able to reach out to you and straighten things out and as soon as possible. The risk of having your user talk page messed up once in awhile is nothing in priority compared to the benefit and necessity to make sure that good faith editors of ''all skill levels'' can easily find and reach you.
Line 168:
::::From my ''11+ years'' of experience recent changes patrolling on Wikipedia, I can ''absolutely'' tell you this: No matter what you do, how hard you try, and what ideas or thoughts you come up with - vandals and trolls will still be able to easily find, edit, and trash up your user talk page if they want to. Even if we were to modify this and the 60+ other templates to remove the link to your user talk page from each message, it wouldn't stop anything. The vandal could still easily find you with the article's edit history, their user talk page edit history, and... haha... in the signature that you leave with each warning message. If your goal is to become a long-term and highly experienced editor in the "recent changes patrolling world" who everyone in the community knows by name because of how involved and reliable you are, you're going to need to get used to the idea that vandals are going to vandalize and trash your talk page, and leave troll messages, threats, insults, and other nasty things there and in an attempt to get a response and a reaction from you. Just do what I do: Ignore them completely. Don't touch, edit, respond to, undo, remove, or do anything else to your user talk page when they vandalize, troll, or leave degrading or insulting messages at you. Treat is as if it didn't exist there at all. Someone else will revert it for you while they're conducting their patrols, and the vandal will quickly get bored and tired of it and move on. Easy peasy. ;-) [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 21:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Oshwah}}Alright, I understand. While I would like to avoid vandalism on my user pages I can completely understand how in the grand scheme removing the link wouldn't really affect anything. Also I never even thought about the fact that in the event of a false warning I would hate for the user to be unable (or not know how) to get in contact with me. As just happened today actually I had a user (who I warned for a Unexplained removal of content) apologize and ask me what they could to to remedy the situation.
:::::Thank you for your explanation {{p}} [[User:A 10 fireplane|<span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;"><b>A 10 fireplane</b></span>]] [[User_talk:A 10 fireplane|<sup><span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;">Imform me</
::::::[[User:A 10 fireplane|A 10 fireplane]] - Trust me, trolling and vandalism on user talk pages is an inevitable event. I've had vandals and trolls leave me some nasty messages over 5 times today... you'll get used to it. Just remember that these people are just doing what they're doing simply to be trolls and to try and get a negative response or reaction from you. No matter what happens, always remember that the best thing you can do is to [[WP:DENY|never give them what they want]]. These are kids at school, trolls who have nothing else to do, and people who feel that they have the "mask of anonymity" because they're behind a computer screen (even though they really don't if it really came down to it); they're going to be insulting, they're going to be nasty, they're going to vandalize your talk page, they're going to call you names, and if you have the right mindset and a high level of self-esteem and self-confidence - you'll just laugh at the messages and edits, ignore them, and go about your duties. ;-) [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 21:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I got ya, I'll just ignore them and go on editing. No need to give in. {{p}} [[User:A 10 fireplane|<span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;"><b>A 10 fireplane</b></span>]] [[User_talk:A 10 fireplane|<sup><span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;">Imform me</
{{Yo|A 10 fireplane|Oshwah}} To br fair, all notices and warnings already have a link to the poster's talk page; ''the poster's signature''. That's why I don't see a need for a second, redundant utp link, when a more helpful link, such as the help desk, seems to make more sense. As I said, several others have previously spoken up saying that they skip right to level 2 to avoid the "here is my talk page" bit, (which isn't the best use of the tiered warning system). Myself, I just manually removed the invite to my tp and added a link to the help desk until the uw-vandalism1 template was changed last year. There is something off-putting about posting a warning the talk page of some obnoxious vandal that starts off with "{{tq|You just vandalized that article, don't do it again, or else}}" and ends with "{{tq|oh, and by the way... HERE is my talk page}}" (you know, in case you feel like continuing your vandalism spree, why not use this handy-dandy link to the page of the guy that just warned you). Anyway... JMHO. Cheers fellas. - [[User:Thewolfchild|<span style="color: black">wolf</span>]] 01:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Thewolfchild|Thewolfchild]] - Correct; I indicated this in my response above (regarding the signature) - they'll find you regardless... lol. However, new users aren't all familiar with signatures and might require a sentence that explicitly says to "message me on my user talk page here" for them to understand and navigate there. As you indicated, this is in a level 1 warning that assumes good faith. And typically when you assume good faith and are talking to the user about a potentially concerning edit, you'll typically tell them to not hesitate to message you if they have questions. I also will sometimes skip to a level 2 warning if the vandalism is blatant enough to warrant skipping past the "good faith notice" bit. Some levels of disruption just don't call for it. ;-) [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 01:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{Yo|Thewolfchild|Oshwah}}I can see both sides. While you don't want vandalism on you user pages you also want GF editors to be able to contact you. I'll take y'alls advice and if its blatant enough vandalism skip to a level 2 warning {{p}} [[User:A 10 fireplane|<span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;"><b>A 10 fireplane</b></span>]] [[User_talk:A 10 fireplane|<sup><span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;">Imform me</
:::{{yo|A 10 fireplane}} - just remember that with the actual [[Template:Uw-vandalism1|level-1 vandalism notice]], that "invite" to your talk page in no longer there. It was changed to an invite to the help desk last year, so you don't need to "skip" that one and use level-2. Most level-1 notices still have the talk page invite, but that one a couple others don't. FYI - [[User:Thewolfchild|<span style="color: black">wolf</span>]] 06:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Thewolfchild}}Awesome thanks for the tip {{p}} [[User:A 10 fireplane|<span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;"><b>A 10 fireplane</b></span>]] [[User_talk:A 10 fireplane|<sup><span style="color:#7CE329; cursor:no-drop;">Imform me</
== Template-protected edit request on 14 February 2019 ==
Line 336:
==Discussion at [[WT:TM#Uw-nonfree wording (repost)]]==
[[File:Farm-Fresh eye.png|15px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[WT:TM#Uw-nonfree wording (repost)]]. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 14:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
== Template:Single notice links ==
So I just came across this monstrosity and I have to say, it's doing an awful job at serving its purpose as a navigational aide. Snarky remark aside, {{tl|single notice links}} is anything but navigable in its current state. Never mind that it's a horizontal list: there's also the {{tl|tl}} brackets, asymmetrical left-right split, wasted whitespace, and arbitrarily color-coded headers. It also doesn't collapse, which probably can't be all that much desired. Anyways, instead of complaining I think I'll do some tinkering when time permits. Curious to hear your opinions. [[User:Jay D. Easy|jdeazy]]
:[[User:Jay D. Easy|jdeazy]], you have my Support to tinker. I don't think I've ever seen that template before, but I concur with your comments. The spam of brackets are redundant. Making it collapsible sounds like a plus. The unbalanced left-right split would probably work better as a top/bottom split. I suggest the shorter list go on top. When people quit visually-scanning long content it can cause short content at the bottom to perceptually disappear. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 16:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
::{{yo|Alsee}} how's this instead? [[User:Jay D. Easy|Jay D. Easy]] ([[User talk:Jay D. Easy|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jay D. Easy|c]]) 22:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Line 579:
* [[:Template:Uw-cia3]] → {{no redirect|Template:Uw-forum3}}
* [[:Template:Uw-cia4]] → {{no redirect|Template:Uw-forum4}}
– It is unclear what "cia" stands for. This is much clearer: The relevant policy is [[WP:FORUM]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|'''<
:Note: I don't see "cia" templates listed on this page (we have "chat") and unlike "chat", "cia" is not template protected. Since these appear less official and redundant, and that they should have been substituted (it would be easy to check for non-substituted instances), an option could also be to delete them as redundant... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 08:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' to use standard English words like the others in [[:Category:Standardised user warning templates]], such as {{tl|Uw-create1}}. See [[Template talk:More citations needed#Requested move 30 December 2017]]. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 16:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Line 595:
::I've nearly nominated this template for deletion many times. I think the only chance it has is if the wording were somehow switched around. There is nothing wrong with using multiple IP addresses. In the large majority of cases where this template is used it's not a deliberate choice. However, there is something wrong with ''doing vandalism'' (while using multiple addresses). Being warned for using the addresses ("Do not use multiple [[IP address]]es") is completely missing the point. The previous wording, although not perfect, got across the real meaning of the message: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-multipleIPs&diff=407740599&oldid=396788781 "You have repeatedly been warned to stop your vandalism of articles on Wikipedia when you came here using other IPs. Please stop."] -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 08:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
:::Yes, my {{tqqi|Using multiple addresses is usually considered like creating sockpuppet accounts}} should have been: {{tqqi|Using multiple addresses for block evasion or attempting to evade scrutiny is usually considered like creating sockpuppet accounts}} indeed. This template is really in the context of vandalism, so I agree that it's strange. One thing that I can think of is when a patroller uses rollback but that it's not sufficient because another similar address also edited just before the new one (and this may even be missed). I would support its deletion, I think. On the other hand, its text used to be [[Special:Permalink/412201723|different]] and it seems to have been used at east {{sl|insource:"Template:Uw-multipleIPs"|10,738 times|ns3}} (substituted, so deletion would not affect existing instances). There still are many links to the template itself though... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 09:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
== Draft pending submission ==
Hello, I have submitted a new series of drafts for a new multi-level user warning template and am seeking review from a [[WP:UW]] member. The first may be found at [[Draft:Template:Uw-flag1]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 21:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
:Hi, {{u|LaundryPizza03}}, are there examples where this could (have) be(en) useful? [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 21:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
::There is [[Special:Permalink/906120966#User who's edits are only adding flags|an ANI]] about a user account who has only ever added flags in breach of [[MOS:ICON]]. Another user was [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:ProudIrishAspie_and_Infobox_flags|banned from adding flags or icons to infoboxes]] in 2013, shortly before retiring after being blocked for violating his topic ban. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 21:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
:::Okay, I'm completely neutral about this then. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I've put the drafts ([[Draft:Template:Uw-flag1]], [[Draft:Template:Uw-flag2]], etc.) on hold/under review until this has consensus here. [[User:AngusWOOF|<strong><span style="color: #606060;">AngusWOOF</span></strong>]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF#top|<span style=" color: #663300;">bark</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AngusWOOF|<span style="color: #006600;">sniff</span>]]) 00:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
**I added the block template too on [[Draft:Template:Uw-flagblock]]
== New template: uw-spambotblock ==
I made a template about spambots because it's available on Meta. See [[Draft:Template:Uw-spambotblock]]> [[Special:Contributions/114.124.198.196|114.124.198.196]] ([[User talk:114.124.198.196|talk]]) 06:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
== Requested move 3 July 2019 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
The result of the move request was: '''consensus to move to [[Template:uw-socialmediablock]]'''. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:KSFT|<span style="color: #aa8866; font-family: serif;"><b>KSFT</b></span>]] <sup>([[User talk:KSFT|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/KSFT|c]])</sup> 08:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
----
[[:Template:Uw-myblock]] → {{no redirect|Template:Uw:whblock}} or {{no redirect|Template:Uw-snblock}} or {{no redirect|Template:Uw-socialmediablock}}. What does "my" exactly mean? Let's try to be more clear. [[Special:Contributions/180.242.167.149|180.242.167.149]] ([[User talk:180.242.167.149|talk]]) 04:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) <small>--'''''Relisting.''''' — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 06:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)</small>
*Presumably "my" refers to MySpace, since the original revision of the template links to [[WP:NOTMYSPACE]]. I'm not sure that "wh" is a vast improvement, fine as a redirect perhaps, but would {{tl|Uw-webhostblock}} not offer more clarity? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 20:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*:I'd suggest that might get confused at some point with {{tl|webhostblock}} which is something completely different and used a fair amount. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 23:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
*::Hmm, something else relevant to that part of WP policy then, {{tl|Uw-socialmediablock}} perhaps? (Not very concise, but no less so than {{tl|Uw-spamblacklistblock}}.) I'm just going by the existing naming scheme though. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 11:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
*:::I could support that. The current title is so outdated almost anything would be better. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 17:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>
== New template: uw-generic4im ==
Please comment on whether [[:Draft:Template:Uw-generic4im]] is useful. [[User:AngusWOOF|<strong><span style="color: #606060;">AngusWOOF</span></strong>]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF#top|<span style=" color: #663300;">bark</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AngusWOOF|<span style="color: #006600;">sniff</span>]]) 06:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
*Well, I think it's useful because it's a final warning for LTAs and other socks. [[Special:Contributions/114.124.134.146|114.124.134.146]] ([[User talk:114.124.134.146|talk]]) 05:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
**But it's the same as Uw-v4im. [[Special:Contributions/182.0.196.99|182.0.196.99]] ([[User talk:182.0.196.99|talk]]) 06:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
== New template: Uw-moveblock ==
See [[Draft:Template:Uw-moveblock]] [[Special:Contributions/114.124.244.238|114.124.244.238]] ([[User talk:114.124.244.238|talk]]) 02:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
== Suggested new template==
I strongly suggest making a template to warn against adding people or events without their own Wikipedia articles to [[Wikipedia:DOY|day of the year]] articles. This is a very strict rule that prevents the pages from being clogged with non-notable events, and I spend about half my time as a pending changes reviewer undoing such edits. I don't know how to make such templates, so if someone would like to make it, give me instructions on how to make it, or else provide feedback in any way, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --[[User:Puzzledvegetable|<u style="color:#0000ff"><span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#000000">Puzzledvegetable</span></u>]]<b><sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">[[User talk:Puzzledvegetable|Is it teatime already?]]</sup></b> 13:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
:I believe you are looking for {{tl|uw-badlistentry}} [[User:MarginalCost|MarginalCost]] ([[User talk:MarginalCost|talk]]) 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks. That's exactly what I'm looking for. --[[User:Puzzledvegetable|<u style="color:#0000ff"><span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#000000">Puzzledvegetable</span></u>]]<b><sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">[[User talk:Puzzledvegetable|Is it teatime already?]]</sup></b> 17:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
== New template: uw-hxblock ==
I have created a new draft template that is used to remind Wikipedia users that they are blocked for creating, maintaining or restoring hoaxes as this behaviour is forbidden. The draft template is called [[Draft:Template:Uw-hxblock]]. Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/122.108.183.105|122.108.183.105]] ([[User talk:122.108.183.105|talk]]) 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
== Proposal ==
Hello. This is [[User:Wyatt2049|Wyatt2049]], and I am making a proposal. What I was thinking is that some of the more common template uses should be changed slightly. I think that the Icons should have a slight colour change for some of the templates. I have made a list of that those should be. [[User:Wyatt2049/iconslist|LIST]]. I think that this would be a good Idea because this could help disifer different warnings if you have multiple types on your user page. Please let me know about my proposal, and if it is a good Idea. I would be happy to do all of the work to change it, except for template protected, which I cannot edit. I could request an edit for those. Thanks. --[[User:Wyatt2049|Wyatt2049 |]] ([[User talk:Wyatt2049|talk]]) 12:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
:I have made a draft. [[Draft:Template Proposal]]. It is not yet complete, as I am in school. I will be able to start in an hour. --[[User:Wyatt2049|Wyatt2049 |]] ([[User talk:Wyatt2049|talk]]) 13:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what the added value is here - I get that it distinguishes between the types of warning, but I feel like having lots of colors on the page would be distracting rather than useful, and I don't see people memorizing the meanings of the different colors. More importantly, the blue-yellow-orange-red progression is, at least to me, a normal progression from less to more important warnings (though I suspect that this might be at least partly a cultural thing) [[User:Creffett|creffett]] ([[User talk:Creffett|talk]]) 00:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
== New template: uw-usertalk ==
Hi all, I've created a new user warning template, [[Template:Uw-usertalk]] for when people use their talk page for non-talk-page things. It's based on one of [[User:Drm310]]'s warnings. Feedback welcome and appreciated. [[User:Creffett|creffett]] ([[User talk:Creffett|talk]]) 00:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
:I just made a new one: [[Draft:Template:Uw-usertalk-hard]]. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:38D0:E70:E035:3A99:925F:549E|2600:1702:38D0:E70:E035:3A99:925F:549E]] ([[User talk:2600:1702:38D0:E70:E035:3A99:925F:549E|talk]]) 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
== Requested move 4 September 2019 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> <span style="border:1px solid #7f0063;padding:1px;"> [[User:Samee|<span style="color:#fff;background:#911175;"> '''samee''' </span>]][[User talk:Samee|<span style="color:#fff;background:#a85796;"> ''converse'' </span>]]</span> 18:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
----
* [[:Template:Uw-uhblock-double]] → {{no redirect|Template:Uw-uhblock-i}}
* [[:Template:Uw-ublock-double]] → {{no redirect|Template:Uw-ublock-i}}
The suffix -double doesn't look like an impersonation block. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:38D0:E70:8C6E:1B6A:E130:6B45|2600:1702:38D0:E70:8C6E:1B6A:E130:6B45]] ([[User talk:2600:1702:38D0:E70:8C6E:1B6A:E130:6B45|talk]]) 11:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
* {{tq|'''double''', ''noun'', a duplicate or counterpart; something exactly or closely resembling another.}} '''Oppose''' proposed names. I don't see how "-i" is an improvement since its meaning won't be clear from the template name alone. Should any change be necessary it would be better to use "-impersonate" in full or another synonym such as "-mimic", "-clone", "-fake" etc. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 15:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>
== [[Template:Uw-3rr|Uw-3rr]] ==
@{{User link|Mathglot}} Thank you for {{Diff2 |915290513 |your recent contribution }} to [[Template:Uw-3rr]] to remove some arguably unnecessary wording.
Could you explain the rationale in your edit summary:
{{Talk quote inline |[[WP:BRD]] doesn't show "how to reach consensus", but only how to avoid edit warring }}, as this differs from my interpretation of [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:Lmatt|Lmatt]] ([[User talk:Lmatt|talk]]) 18:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
: As one example: discussions at [[WP:DR]] are better placed to discuss "how to reach consensus". BRD doesn't say anything about how to actually achieve it, like DR or 3O do, it only seeks to prevent disruption by avoiding the rabbit hole of [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], which inhibits progress towards [[WP:CONS|consensus]]. That said, the burden of proof on added material is on the person who added it; so rather than explaining the rationale for restoring the earlier version, really you should try to elucidate why those words are appropriate and should be added to this warning based on the guideline, and seek support from other editors for this change. Perhaps they will agree with you. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
:: @{{User link|Mathglot}} I think I understand. So although BRD does show "how to reach consensus" in situations such as edit warring, the wording you removed: {{Talk quote inline |"for a guide on how to reach consensus" }} suggests BRD ''should'' be used to reach a consensus when in fact it is only an ''optional'' method. [[User:Lmatt|Lmatt]] ([[User talk:Lmatt|talk]]) 19:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
::: That's closer to my view (and I speak only for myself), but rather than "an ''optional'' method" to ''reach'' consensus, I view it as a ''recommended'' method [it is a [[WP:PG|guideline]], after all] for ''avoiding obstacles'' in the path of reaching consensus by other means (such as DR). That's my two cents. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 19:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
:::: @{{User link|Mathglot}} Does [[WP:BRD]] not state it is an "explanatory supplement" and "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines"? [[User:Lmatt|Lmatt]] ([[User talk:Lmatt|talk]]) 20:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
::::: You're right, it does. It even goes further than that, and says it is ''not'' a guideline because it hasn't been "thoroughly vetted by the community." I'm pretty sure it has higher acceptance than an [[WP:ESSAY]], but less than a [[WP:PG|policy or guideline]], I guess, but now we're getting into a gray area I'm not too familiar with. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
== Template-protected edit request on 20 September 2019 ==
{{tlx|edit template-protected|Template:Uw-vandalism1|answered=y}}{{pb}}
Why is the image clickable? [[Special:Contributions/83.28.198.112|83.28.198.112]] ([[User talk:83.28.198.112|talk]]) 16:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC){{pb}}
{{tlx|edit template-protected|Template:Uw-vandalism2|answered=y}}{{pb}}
Why is the image clickable? [[Special:Contributions/83.28.198.112|83.28.198.112]] ([[User talk:83.28.198.112|talk]]) 16:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC){{pb}}
{{tlx|edit template-protected|Template:Uw-vandalism3|answered=y}}{{pb}}
Why is the image clickable? [[Special:Contributions/83.28.198.112|83.28.198.112]] ([[User talk:83.28.198.112|talk]]) 16:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC){{pb}}
{{tlx|edit template-protected|Template:Uw-vandalism4|answered=y}}{{pb}}
Why is the image clickable? [[Special:Contributions/83.28.198.112|83.28.198.112]] ([[User talk:83.28.198.112|talk]]) 16:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC){{pb}}
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ETp --> These aren't edit requests. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 16:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
== Over-reach ==
[[WP:COIEDIT]] says (emboldening in original):
:you are '''strongly discouraged''' from editing affected articles directly
so why does {{tl|uw-coi}} say:
:We ask that you:
:*'''avoid editing or creating''' articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors
Surely the template's wording should more clearly reflect the former? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 22:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|Pigsonthewing}}, eh, I'd consider "strongly discouraged" to be pretty close to "we ask that you not," but if you think worth changing, what new wording would you suggest? <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 15:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
== number of ways your talk posts get signed ==
The template {{tlx|Uw-tilde}} currently says there are two ways to sign your posts: manually adding tildes or using the signature button.
But isn't this incomplete info? For one thing, I'm pretty sure my talk page messages get automatically signed for me when I'm making edits on my phone. I request someone in the know look into the wording of Template:Uw-tilde to ensure it is up to date and complete, for all platforms. Thx [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 06:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
== Template-protected edit request on 26 September 2019 ==
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw3|answered=yes}}
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw4|answered=yes}}
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw4im|answered=yes}}
Replace the word "harm" in the default reason with the word "disrupt". The word "disrupt" is more generic than the word "harm", and the purpose of [[Template:Uw3]], [[Template:Uw4]] and [[Template:Uw4im]] is to provide a generic base for user warnings of those levels. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-size:14px;">[[User:InvalidOS|<span style="color:#06A;">Invalid</span>]]<sup>[[User:InvalidOS/c|<span style="color:#A60">OS</span>]]</sup> ([[User:InvalidOS/t|talk]])</span> 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
:From a writing perspective, it is awkward to use the word "disrupt" twice in quick succession. From a consensus perspective, the phrasing has apparently used the word "harm" for the entire nine-year life of this template, so you'll need a new consensus to modify that wording. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
:: Ehm? If you or I aren't happy with a wording, [[User:Jonesey95]] we '''boldly edit''' it. Only if you get reverted do you need to take it to talk, achieve consensus and so on. We certainly do not need to start a discussion (taking up time of others, delaying the change, etc) for every little change that just might be entirely uncontroversial. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 06:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|CapnZapp}}, they're [[WP:TPROT|template-protected]] templates so [[WP:BRD]] doesn't apply. Consensus first, ''then'' change. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 07:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
== Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2019 ==
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-test1|answered=yes}}
Regarding {{tl|uw-test1}}: the word {{tq|practice}} as used in the template is a noun; the correct verb should be "practise". — <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif">'''[[User:Ravenpuff|<span style="color:#22254a">RAVEN</span><span style="color:#996e00">PVFF</span>]]'''</span> <b>·</b> ''[[User talk:Ravenpuff|talk]]'' <b>·</b> 14:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC) — <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif">'''[[User:Ravenpuff|<span style="color:#22254a">RAVEN</span><span style="color:#996e00">PVFF</span>]]'''</span> <b>·</b> ''[[User talk:Ravenpuff|talk]]'' <b>·</b> 14:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
:[[WP:ENGVAR]]. In US English, "practice" is the only acceptable spelling of all parts of speech for this word. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
== Create [[Template:uw-vandalism1/doc]] ==
{{Edit template-protected|answered=yes}}
(applying to {{tl|uw-vandalism1}}
Adding separate documentation would help improve documentation. [[User:Monniasza|Monniasza]] [[User talk:Monniasza|talk]] 20:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:NiciVampireHeart|<b style="color:black">Nici</b>]][[User talk:NiciVampireHeart|<b style="color:purple">Vampire</b>]][[Special:Contributions/NiciVampireHeart|<b style="color:black">Heart</b>]] 04:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
== Template-protected edit request on 22 October 2019 ==
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-biog1|answered=yes}}
Can you remove all of the unused empty spaces in [[Template:Uw-biog1]] [[Template:Uw-biog2]] [[Template:Uw-biog3]] [[Template:Uw-biog4]]. Thanks. ___''[[User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA|<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA</em>]]<small>[[User talk:CAPTAIN MEDUSA|'''<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk</em>''']] (We are the champions, my friends)</small>'' 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ETp --> And yes, I did actually look at the templates' code, and I didn't see any unused empty spaces. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|Jonesey95}} see the diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ComparePages&page1=Template%3AUw-biog1&page2=Template%3AUw-biog1%2Fsandbox&diffmode=source]___''[[User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA|<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA</em>]]<small>[[User talk:CAPTAIN MEDUSA|'''<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk</em>''']] (We are the champions, my friends)</small>'' 12:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
:::What's the point of that? It's [[WP:NOINCLUDE|noincluded]] and has no effect on the template's appearance when used. It merely makes the single line of documentation sit better on the template's own page. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 12:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
::::That space looks fine to me, but I have no problem with another template editor removing it. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Jonesey95}} and {{u|Cabayi}}, it just looks weird with space in reading mode. ___''[[User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA|<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA</em>]]<small>[[User talk:CAPTAIN MEDUSA|'''<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk</em>''']] (We are the champions, my friends)</small>'' 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::: {{not done}} per Cabayi above. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
== Relevant warning missing ==
Is it just me, or are we missing a rather important warning? Users who repeatedly delete sourced content because they claim it's incorrect. The delete-warnings do not cover it, as these users often add edit summaries (basically claiming they know better than sources). Similarly, even though it is POV-editing, POV does not really cover it either. Given that we have warnings both for adding unsourced material and for using bad sources, wouldn't it make sense to have warnings for deleting good sources based on [[WP:TRUTH]]. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 23:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
== refspam ==
Would it be worth to make {{tl|uw-refspam1}} through {{tq|refspam4im}} for editors who are spamming references? The {{tl|uw-spam1}} could be used, but instead of linking to [[WP:EL]] linking to [[WP:RS]] and talking about continued addition of dubious sources being regarded as a form of spam. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|Beetstra}}, there's already a {{tl|uw-refspam}}, do you think that changing it to a multi-level template would be a better option? <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 13:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|Creffett}}, I did not know that one .. but that does not really cover my case. There are more and more cases of editors placing (likely their) websites as references. Not necessarily 'a small group of researchers'. Some of these are plain 'spam' websites, not even research. So yes, maybe it is worth considering the multi-level set. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
== Change to [[Template:Uw-genre1]] ==
I suggest changing {{tq|Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies}} to {{xt|Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and'''/or''' verifiability policies}}, since it isn't always them both. [[User:Biscuit-in-Chief|<b><span style="color:teal">—Biscuit-in-Chief</span> <span style="color:#444e76">:-)</span></b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Biscuit-in-Chief|Talk]] – [[Special:Contributions/Biscuit-in-Chief|Contribs]])</sup> 15:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
:Seems reasonable enough to me. <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 21:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
:BOLDly done. [[User:Creffett|creffett]] ([[User talk:Creffett|talk]]) 01:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
== Discussion of username block templates ==
See [[Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Change to orgname block templates?]]. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
== Uw-coi: "which forms all or part of work" ==
{{ping|JBW}} Regarding [[Special:Diff/853854806]], the previous wording can be found in the [[:foundation:Terms_of_Use/en|Terms of Use]] as well as [[WP:PAID]]. Where does the current wording come from, and should we really attempt to insert personal interpretation into text copied from a "policy with legal considerations"? [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 23:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
:I've seen the policy interpreted both ways ("paid only counts if you're being paid specifically to do editing" vs "paid counts as long as you're editing about someone who is paying you in some capacity"). I suspect that there's need for a broader discussion about where to draw the line between COI and PAID. <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 13:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
: Why is that a "personal interpretation"? The terms of use say ''"As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."'' If I am doing work for which I am paid and which includes editing Wikipedia, then my edits to Wikipedia are being paid for. Is there some other way to interpret the quoted text from the terms of use? On the other hand I can't see how ''"paid counts as long as you're editing about someone who is paying you in some capacity"'' can be justified. Being paid by someone for work unrelated to Wikipedia, and also separately and privately editing Wikipedia about that person is not paid editing, though of course it is editing with a conflict of interest. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) <small>''Formerly JamesBWatson''</small> 14:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|JBW}}, what I'm thinking about in the latter case (and I might not have clearly articulated what I was thinking) was a COI case a few months back where the president of a for-profit university was editing the page about that school. I recall some disagreement about whether it counted as paid - on the one hand, his job description probably doesn't include editing Wikipedia, on the other, his job is to make the school look good. <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
:: Yes. That is a sort of grey area where one could argue either way, and there could be a case for making the policy on paid editing more specific. However, my personal view is that the modern tendency to try to deal with issues that come up with by making polices ever more and more specific to block any loopholes is a mistake, and it is far better to try to follow the original spirit of Wikipedia, which is that we don't have firm rules. Why is there any need to "draw the line between COI and PAID"? I haven't seen the particular case you are referring to, so I can't specifically comment on it, but in general such a situation is clearly a case of conflict of interest, and can be dealt with accordingly, without wasting time on wikilawyering over whether it is or isn't technically paid editing. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) <small>''Formerly JamesBWatson''</small> 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
:: If there is no other way to interpret the quoted text, there's no need for the additional clarification. If there is, it is a personal interpretation. The addition seems to needlessly complicate the already-complex sentence, and quoting the actual wording of the TOU/policy seems preferable to me. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 00:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
::: Now you are turning my words round to mean something that they didn't say. There is no logical way of taking the terms of use as meaning anything else, but that doesn't prevent people from misunderstanding, and they often do. "Additional clarification" is therefore likely to be helpful. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) <small>''Formerly JamesBWatson''</small> 13:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
== Edit request for [[Template:Uw4|Uw4]] ==
I suggest changing the markup from "You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further warning''' the next time" to "You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing '''without further warning''' the next time" (or similar) since the current version resembles [[WP:BOLDAVOID]]. Surely, for those who are used to [[WP:MOS|MoS]], the current one just hurts the eyes. — [[user:Mike Novikoff|Mike Novikoff]] 05:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
== "Mark at Arcola" ==
I just made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-ublock&diff=prev&oldid=928808401 this edit] to {{tl|Uw-ublock}} to spell out the "Mark at Arcola" provision of user name policy (that a name such as "{person} at {company}" is acceptable, even preffered). To this end I borrowed and modified language from {{tl|Uw-coi-username}} what was already in place. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|<sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub>]] 20:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|DESiegel}}, looks good, but you added a typo - "appeare to represnt". <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 13:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
::Fixed. Thanks, {{U|Creffett}}. 13:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
== Requested move 17 December 2019 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
The result of the move request was: '''consensus to move''' the template as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. {{#if:|<small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>|{{#if:|<small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small>}}}} [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]<small>[[User talk:Dekimasu|よ!]]</small> 05:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
----
* [[:Template:Uw-ublock-famous]] → {{no redirect|Template:Uw-ublock-wellknown}}
– The content of this template is already using "well-known" instead of "famous" for many years. Likewise Twinkle edit summary when using the template. Now it was suggested to modify the Twinkle "reason" label for this template. But it seems even better to rename the template and make everything consistent. More rationale can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=931040758#minor_tweak_to_block_reasons here by] by {{u|Beeblebrox}}. – [[User:Ammarpad|Ammarpad]] ([[User talk:Ammarpad|talk]]) 05:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' "Famous" is simply not reflected by long-standing practice, policy, or even the original language of the template itself. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 06:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Rename''', probably better to leave the other as a redirect though. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 06:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
*:Yes, that's already expected as the redirect will not fit any deletion criterion. – [[User:Ammarpad|Ammarpad]] ([[User talk:Ammarpad|talk]]) 09:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Everyone makes good arguments. The word "famous" doesn't appear once in the template. --[[User:LiamUJ|LiamUJ]] ([[User talk:LiamUJ|talk]]) 15:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This move is rational and no big deal. [[User:StonyBrook|StonyBrook]] ([[User talk:StonyBrook|talk]]) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
*Always bugged me — we're not interested in famous, we're interested in impersonation. -wellknown seems appropriate, as it's used by the template itself. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 18:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''', seems reasonable to me {{small|on the condition that the first account we block be an [[Elvis impersonator]]}} <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 20:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>
==Encourage the newcomers==
[[:Template:Uw-bite]] links to [[WP:BITE]]. Should it also link to [[Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers]] for some positive advice? I am currently the main author on this essay, so I have a COI; please only make this change if you think it will improve the template. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]])
:These warning templates should ideally link to established policies, or at least guidelines, and not essays. If the guideline needs improvement, do feel free to suggest it on the guideline's talk page. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
== Suggestion for ALLCAPS template ==
I have requested this a month and a half ago on [[WP:RT]] and {{noping|Redrose64}} redirected me here. That was before my WikiBreak. Thanks Bishonen. I am reposting my original message here as I think this template may still be necessary. Thank you.
{{talkquote|
<!-- Begin request -->
<!-- Begin request -->
I have encountered a few users that write messages in ALL CAPS when they want to put emphasis while I am patrolling. For that, I have used personal messages, but I think there may be a need for templates {{tl|uw-allcaps1}} and {{tl|uw-allcaps2}} that may be necessary. The templates I am proposing may have the wording something like this:
*Level 1: "Hello {{tl|BASEPAGENAME}} and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you left a message in ALL CAPS, which is considered [[WP:SHOUTING|shouting]]. This may not be your intent, but check your caps lock key before you continue editing. If you need to emphasize text, you can use <code><nowiki>'''Bold text'''</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>''Italics text''</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki><u>Underlined text</u></nowiki></code>. Thank you."
*Level 2: "Please refrain from leaving messages in ALL CAPS as it is considered [[WP:SHOUTING|shouting]] and [[WP:UNCIVIL|uncivil]]. If you need to emphasize text, you can use <code><nowiki>'''Bold text'''</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>''Italics text''</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki><u>Underlined text</u></nowiki></code>. Thank you."
*Level 3 and higher: use {{tl|uw-npa3}} and {{tl|uw-npa4}}.
Thank you.
<!-- End request -->
[[User:Awesome Aasim|<span style="color:green;">Awesome</span>]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|<span style="color:blue;" title="Check my status before pinging or posting to my talk page!">Aasim</span>]] 19:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
}}
[[User:Awesome Aasim|<span style="color:green;">Awesome</span>]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|<span style="color:blue;" title="Check my status before pinging or posting to my talk page!">Aasim</span>]] 20:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
:I think that may be a bit over-specific, and if needed, could be addressed by a single warning template, not a multi-level one. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 16:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|ToBeFree}} Okay. So maybe we can just have the level 1 warning message. It may be needed, though, as to prevent posts in ALL CAPS. [[User:Awesome Aasim|<span style="color:green;">Awesome</span>]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|<span style="color:blue;" title="Check my status before pinging or posting to my talk page!">Aasim</span>]] 01:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Awesome Aasim}}, I personally have not yet encountered a case where pure "all caps" had been the main problem to explain to a user. If I had, I would probably have written a short custom message for the unique case.
:::I'd guess that users who write in "all caps" are more likely causing more significant disruption in other ways too. If not, it could even be possible to completely ignore the way their messages are written, and respond to their (likely incorrect) arguments instead. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 02:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
== Proposed rewording of uw-vblock ==
{{tl|uw-vblock}} currently reads "You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent vandalism." As blocks are [[WP:BLOCK|preventative not punitive]], I propose this should be changed to "You have been blocked temporarily to prevent further vandalism." Any thoughts? — <span style="font-size:75%;">[[User:Voice of Clam|O Still Small]]</span> [[User talk:Voice of Clam|Voice of Clam]] 15:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
:Sounds good, but as this gets used on dynamic IPs, an acknowledgement that the person reading it may not have vandalized anything might be good (can the template detect if it is on a registered-editor talkpage or an IP one?). People get mad when unfairly accused of bad behaviour, but will probably understand being bycatch in a technical measure to prevent vandalism. Also, they may know the other people using their dynamic IP, and so this may exert social pressure against vandals ("Great, some jerk has been vandalizing Wikipedia again and now I can't fix this typo."). [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 00:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|HLHJ}}: The template already reads "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked" when only anonymous editors from an IP address are blocked. In this regard, there is no need for a change.
:{{u|Voice of Clam}}, I had the same thought, and it applies to all the blocking templates. "For" could be replaced by "to prevent further" in almost all cases, and when I manually personalize a block template, I often do change this wording too. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 16:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
::I've updated {{tl|uw-vblock}} - I haven't looked at the wording of others, but I may do so in the next few days. — <span style="font-size:75%;">[[User:Voice of Clam|O Still Small]]</span> [[User talk:Voice of Clam|Voice of Clam]] 17:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Voice of Clam}}, thanks, it looks wonderful. I just noticed the change positively. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 18:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
::::Looks good to me. If used on an IP, with a null reason=, it says: "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of Duration to prevent further vandalism, as done at Targeted page. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked." The bit about "your" talk page seems a bit odd; "this block includes user talk pages such as this one"? Thanks, BTW, [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]], I'd missed that. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 01:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::No problem. Regarding talk page access revocation, this is not about the whole user talk namespace. When a user is blocked, they can still edit their own talk page, and no others. This access should usually only be used to create an unblock request, or to ask the blocking administrator for clarification. Administrators rarely revoke this last method of on-Wikipedia appeal, unless it has been misused. Revoking a user's talk page access is an action done {{em|after}} blocking almost all cases. The template's ''"In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked"'' variant is, due to the existence of {{tl|uw-tparevoked}}, only needed in extremely rare cases where talk page access is revoked immediately at the time of the original block.
:::::This does not make the proposed text unsuitable, but the reason for proposing a change might have been a misinterpretation. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 02:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::Oh right, that's fine then; in context of appeal procedures, it makes sense to focus on the IP's talk page. Sorry, I know nothing about blocking, and overlooked that parameter. Apologies for twice wasting your time, [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]], and thank you for your patience. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 02:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::No worries, {{u|HLHJ}}, no worries. Not wasted; spent practising a foreign language and spreading knowledge. That's what Wikipedia is about, after all. [[File:Face-smile.svg|18px|link=|alt=🙂]] [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 02:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
== Edit request (January 13, 2020) ==
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-disruptive2|Template:Uw-disruptive3|answered=yes}}
I am requesting that the text "ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards" be amended to "... relevant noticeboards" on both of these warning templates. 'Noticeboards' is un-spaced in nearly every other instance on the wiki; see for example [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards]] and its list of noticeboards. These are the only two Uw-series templates that mention them as far as I can tell. Thanks, –[[User:Erakura|'''<span style="color:black">Erakura</span>''']][[User talk:Erakura|<sup><span style="color:darkgreen">(talk)</span></sup>]] 00:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 00:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
== Shouldn't [[Template:uw-preview]] direct users to the Teahouse instead? ==
Currently this template directs users to the helpdesk, but as far as I can tell, the users who will see this template are almost always new, in which case direction to the teahouse would be better. --[[User:Moonythedwarf|MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.)]] ([[User talk:Moonythedwarf|talk]]) 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
:Welcome templates, like [[Template:Welcome]], which are regularly used in combination with user warnings for new users who have not been previously welcomed, already direct new users to the Teahouse. I would prefer to see the user warning template left with the more generic link to the help desk. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 17:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
== blank edit requests ==
I see this nearly every day, a user files an edit request on a talk page but don't enter any actual proposed change. They are often replied to at the page in question, but just as often the request is simply removed. Seems like we could have a template to drop on their talk page explaining how to properly make edit requests, but if there is one I'm not seeing it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 00:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Beeblebrox}}, interesting, [[Special:AbuseFilter/987]] is supposed to be warning people about empty edit requests to prevent them from happening in the first place. No objection to slapping together a warning, but it also might be worth changing that filter to disallow...will bring it up on EF/N. <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 15:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::So the filter is catching people doing that, but according to the logs, about one editor a day ignores the warning and publishes anyway. Opened a discussion [[Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Change_987_to_disallow%3F|here]] about changing the filter from warn to disallow. <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 15:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:There's the {{tl|empty edit request}} template, although it doesn't seem very informative to me. [[User:Edible Melon|Edible Melon]] ([[User talk:Edible Melon|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Edible Melon|contribs]] '''·''' [[Special:Block/Edible Melon|block user]]) 07:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
== uw-coi category expiral ==
The template {{tl|uw-coi}} seems to add the user to the category {{cl|User talk pages with conflict of interest notices}} and to include a comment that claims that the category should be removed if the user is blocked or the message remains for a while. It also seems to try to limit the category inclusion to 5 months via #ifexpr with timestamp subtraction. However, it doesn't seem to work. The "Null edit" section at [[WP:Purge]] claims that "All other purge methods do not apply to categorisation and "what links here" changes from template edits, but a null edit does". I tested things on a few pages in that category, and it seems like the only method that makes the category disappear ''is'' a null edit. What should be done? The finest solutions I can imagine is [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Null edit bot|this declined bot]] or [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Joe's Null Bot|this now-broken bot]] or a new bot. [[User:Edible Melon|Edible Melon]] ([[User talk:Edible Melon|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Edible Melon|contribs]] '''·''' [[Special:Block/Edible Melon|block user]]) 07:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Edible Melon}}, I actually have a BRFA open for a similar task ([[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Creffbot]]) that takes the more brute-force approach of just removing the category from the (substituted) template instead of doing a null edit. <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 14:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
::I think the templates {{tl|uw-coi-username}} and {{tl|uw-username}} (and other such templates) can be rewritten so that category removal only takes a null edit, possibly extracting a template for timestamp comparison. [[User:Edible Melon|Edible Melon]] ([[User talk:Edible Melon|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Edible Melon|contribs]] '''·''' [[Special:Block/Edible Melon|block user]]) 01:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
== New block template for UPE: [[Template:Uw-upeblock]] ==
Noting its creation here — it does seem to be filling a gap — but I had a couple comments on the template itself (cc {{u|Coffee}} and {{u|ST47}}{{hp|Bradv}}). In particular, I think it would be good to include some brief, additional text at the end as right now the sysop's signature is erroneously placed at the end of the third bullet. Moreover, I think the language could be tightened a bit: there is a lot of repetition — [[WP:SPAM]] and [[WP:TOU]] are both used twice — and it reads a bit muddled to me. I made some changes, but wanted open a broader discussion. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 12:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
:Feel absolutely free to make any changes you think are improvements. I just went back to make sure there is a distinction between advertising and the ToU vio. Not quite sure though how to add more at the end to make the signature not sign after the 3rd bullet, but I understand that from a point of esthetics. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<span style="color:#090">have a</span> ☕️]] // [[Special:Contribs/Coffee|<span style="color:#4682b4">beans</span>]] // </small> 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
== Possible trolls? ==
Is there a warning for potential/blatant trolls and [[WP:NOTHERE]] editors who are wasting other editors' time? I've come across two lately. Wrote a custom warning for one, used a somewhat inappropriate disruptive-editing template for the other. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 01:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
== [[Template:Uw-botublock]] embeds irrelevant explanation ==
"Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username contains the suffix "-bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts. <strong>However, you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".</strong>"
Emphasis mine. This appears to be the result of including a template that should be more flexible to prevent this sentence from appearing, or the result of including the wrong template. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 01:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
:Jarring indeed! I think {{tl|uw-adminublock}} is the only other template explicitly relying on verbiage from {{tl|uw-ublock}}, and it suffers from the same issue. The text was only just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-ublock&diff=prev&oldid=928808401&diffmode=source added last December] by {{u|DESiegel}}. I'll just move it inside the {{code|reason}} parameter's default text, should take care of it. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 17:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||