Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 14: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace) (bot |
m fix bold |
||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
*Also agree, we should reword the template when the <tt>anon=yes</tt> parameter is passed to make it clear the offending user is not allowed to edit, account or not (at least until the block expires?). I think the wording should still be made clear that uninvolved registered users can continue to edit. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
*:To clarify my point, the block message should not read "You have been blocked for..." as this is reserved for accounts, or for when you as the admin have established the IP as static and used by a single user. In the latter case, you should perform a [[WP:HARDBLOCK|hard block]] ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address") which when using Twinkle the <tt>anon=yes</tt> parameter will be omitted. If we are performing a soft block the template wording should not imply otherwise. Obviously the idea is to let uninvolved editors who have accounts know that they can continue to edit. This could even be done like we do with the warnings, where there is italicized text below the template that would read something like ''"If this is shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in"''. Also, mind you with default options account creation will be disabled for up to 24 hours when blocking IPs, as a measure to prevent block evasion. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 18:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
:Can I bring up a different but related concern? I see <nowiki>{{ uw-ublock }}</nowiki> on talk pages and one of the recommendations offered to blocked editors is to create a new account with a different, appropriate username. I can't locate a diff right now but I've seen at least one editor with this notice create a new account and then get accused of block evasion because their previous account was blocked. Because it was a new editor, they aren't going to complain, they will just stop editing. I would think that admins would recognize when it is a username block so that new accounts, which are suggested, aren't mistaken for socks or for block evasion. [[User:Liz|<
::Who was doing the accusing? If I'm looking at a block evasion accusation I always check what the original block was for. If it was a soft username block then I tell the accuser the new account is kosher. If it was for username+editing, then I look to see if the new account has the same type of edits. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
:::Well, [[User:NeilN|NeilN]], I think that action is what most admins would do. If I see it again though, I'll bring it up with either the admin who imposed the block or bring it to your attention. I remember only noticing it because the instructions in the template directly tell the editor that they should create a new account which is unusual advice to give a blocked editor. [[User:Liz|<
::::{{ping|Liz}} The softblock username block messages all contain similar instructions to create a new account. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::...because the default assumption is that they created the account not knowing the policy, and they are not being disruptive. If they are then some other type of block (and message) is obviously required. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§[[User:FreeRangeFrog|<span style="color:#00CA00">FreeRangeFrog</span>]]</span><sup>[[User talk:FreeRangeFrog|croak]]</sup> 02:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Line 92:
== [[Template:uw-notenglish]] ==
The template, [[Template:uw-notenglish|Uw-notenglish]], leaves a few lines of blank space above it when used. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charles.mccants&oldid=682610592 here], when it was used as part of a Twinkle edit. I have no idea why it does this, but when used it doesn't look good. I have no idea how to remove the blankspace from the template, but hopefully someone will be able to do this. Thanks. <span style="border=3px double #0075EA">[[User:Seagull123|'''<span style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </span>''']][[User talk:Seagull123|'''<span style="color:#304747;background-color:#BED6D;"> Φ </span>''']]
:The template appears to be okay; it's whatever adds the header that seems to be adding two lines of whitespace above the header. I've seen a bot or two that does this, also. Maybe a small Twinkle bug? ''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Painius</b>]]'' 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Line 108:
== Redirect vs. Link Target ==
I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-userpage&type=revision&diff=684525973&oldid=665395975 this edit] before I noticed that it had been done by someone else and then reverted. I'm going to leave it rather than self-reverting for now, because to me it seems like it makes more sense to use the link target (which is shorter anyway), but if someone disagrees I'm fine with being reverted. Best, [[User:Mww113|<b><
== COI category maintenance? ==
Both {{tl|Uw-coi}} and {{tl|Uw-coi-username}} contain the comment {{xt|THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION.}} with that category being [[:Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices]]. Currently, it has over 41,500 pages in it, so I think this category has been a bit neglected. Would anyone be opposed to a bot performing automatic removal of this category after a period of time? Say, two weeks, or a month? I think it would help make this category useful again for those that might try to keep an eye on it, if it contained only recent notices.
:{{BOTREQ|brfa}} [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AvicBot 12|here]].
== Question about uw-username ==
Line 219:
I need to explain to an IP that you don't complain about problems in an article by editing the article itself. I'll do my best to construct a message on the IP's talk page, but I don't know if it'll be what should be there.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]] • [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#FA0"> talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]] • 18:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
:After looking through the list one more time, I found it.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]] • [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#FA0"> talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]] • 18:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
== [[Template:Uw-refimprove]] ==
There are times I'd like to nudge users to get into the practice of adding sources, but the user was not editing a new article, and this template currently reads: "Thanks for contributing the new article ..." On the other hand, {{tl|Uw-unsourced1}} is not appropriate, as it implies that their edit was removed: "It's been removed and archived in the page history for now ..." However, sometimes I know (or trust) that the information is correct and am not contesting or reverting the addition, but want to encourage the new user to add sources. Perhaps Uw-refimprove could be reworded to: "Thanks for contributing <u>to</u> the <s>new</s> article ..."?—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 01:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
: Seems a sensible tweak to make this template more widely applicable, although placing such a template on a user-talk page will not always result in the action desired, and the editor placing it should consider also inserting a {{tl|citation needed}} in the article, or of course referencing the addition yourself[[User:Noyster|: <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>]] [[User talk:Noyster|<span style="color:seagreen"> (talk),</span> ]] 09:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
== Uw-wrongsummary template loop ==
{{ping|NE Ent}} Where was the template loop that you fixed with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-wrongsummary&diff=689131257&oldid=687438783 this edit]? It was causing signatures to appear on the line below in a {{tag|pre|o}} block - see [[WP:VPT#Malformatted signature after Template:uw-wrongsummary|this VPT thread]]. I'm hoping that there's a way to fix both of these problems at once, but I can't do much about it until I know where the template loop is happening. Best — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 05:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:Also pinging [[User:George Orwell III|George Orwell III]], who undid Ent's edit. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing the "loop" problem occurs when more than one of these template types is applied like so...
<pre>
{{subst:uw-wrongsummary}} ~~~~{{subst:uw-deadlink}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-wrongsummary}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-deadlink}} ~~~~
</pre>
... instead of ...
<pre>
blank line
{{subst:uw-wrongsummary}}
blank line
{{subst:uw-deadlink}}
</pre>
... Why this family of templates do not use any sort of container block element seems odd to me but I'm not fully aware of all the possible uses admittedly. -- [[User:George Orwell III|George Orwell III]] ([[User talk:George Orwell III|talk]]) 06:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:Seems a strange reason to add a newline. A template loop is where a template transcludes itself, which is not the case here. If it were the case, neither extra spaces nor newlines would make any difference.
:When templates have a {{tag|noinclude}} portion (usually for doc or cats), the opening tag of that portion should be butted up against the "real" template code directly, without intervening spaces or newlines, since those will be left in place when the {{tag|noinclude}} is stripped out.
:When I put one of these templates on a user talk page, I sometimes add extra text after the template but before the sig, usually with the offending diff, and a block would force that extra text to a new line which is not always desired. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 08:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:Usage was
<nowiki>{uw-wrongsummary|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2|No one cares about kittens when chocolate chip cookies are in play! <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 10:31 pm, 4 November 2015, Wednesday (8 days ago) (UTC−5)}}</nowiki>
:(tongue in cheek, not a serious warning). When I hit preview that a red "template loop" warning showed up, never really did figure out why. I compared the template source to similar templates and tried adding the space; it seemed to help. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 11:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
::The template is not intended for use as {{tlx|uw-wrongsummary|...}} but as {{tlxs|uw-wrongsummary|...}} Try it like that, see if you get the same error. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
== Template:Uw-coi-min ==
{{tl|uw-coi-min}} appears to have been deleted, but is still listed on this page. Should it be removed? [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:That is a question for {{user|JamesBWatson}} who both created it and deleted it, the latter under [[WP:CSD#G7]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:: Deleted. Thanks for pointing it out.<small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 23:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
== uw-longterm nominated for deletion ==
See [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_15#Template:Uw-longterm]]; please comment there, not here. Thanks, — <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:1px 0 0 1px">[[User:This, that and the other|This, that]]</span> and <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:0 1px 1px 0">[[User talk:This, that and the other|the other<small> (talk)</small>]]</span> 06:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
== {{tl|Talk-vandal1}}-4 and 4im proposed for deletion ==
Discussion found at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 20#Template:Talk-vandal1]]. - [[User:Sam Sailor|Sam Sailor]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|<sup>''Talk!''</sup>]] 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
== Clarification on skipping levels ==
The page states "In cases of gross, extreme, or numerous vandalism it may be appropriate to use the Level 4im warning. Alternatively, in cases of obvious bad faith vandalism, it may be appropriate to use a level 3 warning in the first instance." What does "obvious bad faith vandalism" mean? It links to the joke page "assume bad faith". If that instruction is itself meant to be a joke, then that's not clear and I don't think it's appropriate on this page. [[User:LibertyOrDeath|LibertyOrDeath]] ([[User talk:LibertyOrDeath|talk]]) 03:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
:I think if someone's replacing good content with profanity, for instance, that constitutes "obvious bad faith vandalism". I agree that it seems questionable to link to a joke page in this instance. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 13:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::The link to the humor page should probably go as it si not really helpful. I can say that if I see soemone who, int heir first few edits, is attacking other users, adding profanity to articles, or other things that can ''only'' be malicious and not just someone trying to see if they really can edit this thing, I will go straight to an "only warning". [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
== Uw-socksuspect vs. Socksuspectnotice ==
In which cases would you deploy {{tlsx|Uw-socksuspect}} (from 2008) rather than the "more-to-the-point notification" {{tlsx|Socksuspectnotice}} from 2006? [[User:Sam Sailor|Sam Sailor]] [[User talk:Sam Sailor|<sup>''Talk!''</sup>]] 03:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:Even though I am not an expert at this distinguishing templates thing, I have an opinion that Uw-socksuspect is more hard-on firm warning, while Socksuspectnotice is more informational and not as hard-on firm. [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 03:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
== Is there really no 'uw' template for editing other people's User pages?! ==
As per the title – Is there really no 'user warning' template for editing other people's User pages (in violation of [[WP:NOBAN]])?! An IP just edited my User page, and I was surprised that I couldn't find a 'uw' template for editing other people's User pages to put at the IP's Talk page... So, should a template for this be created? (Or is there already one, and I just missed it?) P.S. The message I left at the IP's Talk page can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.73.141.150&oldid=698077523 here] if anyone is interested in using that as the basis for a new 'uw' template... --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
:In this instance, since the IP edits made a pig's ear of the top of your user page, the "userpage vandalism" warning {{tlx|uw-upv}} could have been appropriate[[User:Noyster|: <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>]] [[User talk:Noyster|<span style="color:seagreen"> (talk),</span> ]] 22:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
:: OK, yeah, that one was listed over on the right-side of the [[WP:UWT]] page. I just missed it. Thanks! --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|IJBall}} It depends upon what they actually did, but there's plenty of choice. Considering only the level 1 templates, we have: {{tlxs|uw-vandalism1}} {{tlxs|uw-disruptive1}} {{tlxs|uw-test1}} {{tlxs|uw-delete1}} {{tlxs|uw-notcensored1}} {{tlxs|uw-harass1}} {{tlxs|uw-npa1}} {{tlxs|uw-defamatory1}} most of which continue to level 2 and beyond. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
:::: Yeah, but I was looking for a 'uw' template specific to mucking about with Userpages – and {{tlx|uw-upv}} would have been the best one for that specifically. (P.S. As an aside, I've subsequently figured out who was behind the edits to my Userpage, and I'm pretty sure they were deliberate and not accidental...) --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 23:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
== uw-editsummary for mobile users? ==
{{tl|uw-editsummary}} has a screenshot which is not applicable to the mobile users. Is there a similar template for mobile users? [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]] | [[User talk:Utcursch|talk]] 15:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
== No template for misrepresenting sources? ==
There are templates about OR and POV that tell users to use sources, but almost daily I revert users, mostly IPs or new users, who either change the content keeping the same source, or who do insert a source but in articles where there already is one main source to follow (mainly lists where the consensus is that all data builds on main source). It would be very useful to have a template for not using sources correctly. These edits are not intended as vandalism, and templates telling them to "use sources" would little sense. Given how common this is, I'd hope to see a new template. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 17:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
== Edit request ==
{{tl|Uw-preview}}
{{editrequest|Template:Uw-preview|ans=y}}
===Change:===
{{{icon|[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]}}} Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|your contributions]] to Wikipedia{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|. Regarding your edits to [[:{{{1}}}]]|. In the future}}, it is recommended that you use the [[Help:Show preview|preview]] button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces [[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]]s, and prevents clogging up [[Special:Recentchanges|recent changes]] and the [[Help:Page history|page history]]. {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:uw-preview -->
===To:===
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the [[Help:Show preview|preview]] button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces [[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]]s, and prevents clogging up [[Special:Recentchanges|recent changes]] and the [[Help:Page history|page history]]. Below the edit box is a '''Show preview''' button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
[[File:Mediawiki-button-preview.png|thumb|center|760x760px|The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] field.]]
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the [[WP:HD|help desk]] for assistance. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-preview -->
===Comment===
Adding a visual aid will help editors understand the issue better, especially new and first time users. This same idea is used for the [[Template:Uw-editsummary|"Not using edit summary" template]] (<nowiki>{{uw:editsummary}}</nowiki>). - ''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]'' 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:I agree with the fact that you would want a visual aid to help editors understand the issue better. However, the semi-protection request seems to be not appropriate in this case, because you are autoconfirmed and can edit semi-protected articles. But you are right about the fact that you are wanting to give a consensus on the change you wanted to do, so I credit that you are trying to give a consensus to what you wanted to do. :) [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 08:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
: Agree that it is (mostly) an improvement. But deduplicate ''It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving'', probably the one above the image. I like that it provides a link to the help desk since this template (probably) is mostly to low experience editors. —[[user:EncMstr|EncMstr]] ([[user talk:EncMstr|talk]]) 09:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
::I thought template editor privileges were needed to change a template, that's why I posted the edit request. The duplicate wording was by mistake, I have fixed it now. I really don't see this as controversial and if I can make the change myself, then I'll just go ahead and do that. - ''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]'' 09:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::{{u|Thewolfchild}}, only templates with the pink lock require template editor or admin privileges. Some templates are not protected at all and can be edited by anyone, including IPs. The templates {{tl|Uw-editsummary}} and {{tl|Uw-preview}} are semi-protected, just like any other article that is semi-protected. [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 21:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Well, it looks like I need to always show preview too. [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 21:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
== uw-unsourced templates should suggest article talk page, not user talk page ==
Hi - the template {{tltts|uw-unsourced1}} should ask people to leave a question at the article talk page, i think.... 00:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jytdog|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
: I agree completely. In fact I think this should apply to most of the templates. [[User:Jeh|Jeh]] ([[User talk:Jeh|talk]]) 01:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::Agree, on both counts. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Mlpearc|<span style="color:#800000">'''Mlpearc'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Mlpearc|<span style="color:#FFD700">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Alternately I think it should be more clear that questions relating to article content are best left at the article's Talk page while more 'general-purpose' questions might be best directed to the editor who left the comment. But I certainly get enough talkback due to templating editors that a significant amount of the time I end up recommending that if they disagree with my feelings they can raise the matter at the article's Talk page. In an ideal world it would be nifty if you could be auto-pinged if someone followed up on a Talk page notice you'd left by starting a discussion at the related article, but I realize that's wishful thinking. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 03:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Hmmm, I ''am'' getting auto-pings whenever someone mentions my username in a discussion somewhere. I don't think I did anything to activate this functionality; it began spontaneously around August 2015 according to the log at [[Special:Notifications]]. However, there are controls for the kinds of notices on the [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo|''Notifications'' tab of your preferences]]. On the topic of article talk vs. user talk, I completely agree that article specific discussion should occur on the article's talk page. —[[user:EncMstr|EncMstr]] ([[user talk:EncMstr|talk]]) 04:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::If your username is mentioned (correctly) then you get pinged, but that only works if they mention your username. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 06:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
== uw-hoax wording ==
{{tl|uw-hoax}} contains the line "Usually, hoaxes ''will'' be caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created.", which seems an odd point to make - telling the hoaxer that Wikipedia doesn't always catch hoaxes straight away, which could easily be read as a challenge to hoax more subtly next time.
[[User:Everymorning]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-hoax&diff=600255496&oldid=590351544 scrupulously added] the "usually" in 2014, rightly observing that "Hoaxes will be caught" is not factually accurate. But I think we can probably lose the whole sentence. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 14:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
:Why not replace the sentence with "Hoaxes are eligible for [[WP:speedy deletion|speedy deletion]]"? The idea is no doubt to convey that we don't keep hoaxes any longer than it takes to spot them[[User:Noyster|: <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>]] [[User talk:Noyster|<span style="color:seagreen"> (talk),</span> ]] 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
::Perhaps, if you link it to G3, as in [[WP:speedy deletion#G3|speedy deletion]]. We shouldn't expect the perp to search through what is a rather large page. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 17:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
{{done}} <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Mlpearc|<span style="color:#800000">'''Mlpearc'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Mlpearc|<span style="color:#FFD700">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 17:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
== Add templates for poorly sourced content? ==
I was thinking about some warning templates for poorly sourced content. I did not think {{tl|uw-unsourced1}} (and above) or {{tl|uw-disruptive1}} (and above) was not as suitable for specifically telling about poorly sourced content, so I was trying to build up some draft templates at [[User:Qwertyxp2000/poorlysourced templates]]. I am still not sure exactly the sentences to put in for those uw-poorlysourced templates, but I do know that there should be information specific to poorly sourced content. [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 08:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
:What you have is a start, but my suggestion would be taking the unsourced templates verbatim and simply updating them to reflect the fact that the content added is poorly (maybe include unreliably?) sourced rather than entirely lacking in sources. A link to WP:RS should certainly be included, at least on the lower-level notices. Happy to help out with this though my time is somewhat limited for the next week or so. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 15:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
::{{U|Doniago}}, feel free to edit in that part of the userspace, if you wish. [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 20:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Well, I have changed much of my templates, thanks to your advice. If you are satisfied with my [[User:Qwertyxp2000/poorlysourced templates]] page, then you may convert these templates into each separate Uw-poorlysourced template. If not, you may like to reword each template to suit your feeling of general new-user/IP understanding. [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 23:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
::::In my opinion, [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]], [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], and even [[Help:Referencing for beginners]] is far too much information to passing along in a level 1 warning. You can't expect newcomers to read walls upon walls of text ([[WP:TLDR]]), when in most cases they just didn't know how to add references, or that they needed to. There are many templates that need to be simplified, but for this one we have a nice place to send newbies: [[WP:INTREF]]. For inline citations, send them to [[WP:INTREF2]] (we could come up with better shortcuts), and for reliable sources we have [[WP:INTREF4]]. The other major advantage here is this guide includes demonstrations on how to do these things using [[WP:VE|VisualEditor]], which can make adding references substantially easier. I've been working with some other folks on these simplified Intro guides, and eventually we hope to send all links about referencing to [[Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor]], but we can't do that yet because VisualEdtior is not an option for anonymous users on desktop yet. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Note also there is the general notice {{tl|uw-refimprove}}, although it suffers from the same problem of linking to overly bloated policy and guideline pages. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 00:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::I have [[User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced1]], [[User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced2]], [[User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced3]] and [[User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced4]] now by the way. [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 09:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
===RfC===
{{archivetop|result=This RfC was open from 20 January to 19 February without input from anyone except the proposer. As there is insufficient participation in this RfC, it is recommended that the discussion is restarted in a new section with a more concrete proposal if the proposer still wishes for this question to be considered by the community. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 14:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)}}
Do you think there should be Uw-poorlysourced1 to Uw-poorlysourced4 templates? The drafts that I had prepared before this specific discussion are [[User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced1]], [[User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced2]], [[User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced3]] and [[User:Qwertyxp2000/uw-poorlysourced4]]. [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 08:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
====Support====
#'''Support''' - as nominator. [[User:Qwertyxp2000|'''Q'''wertyxp2000]] ([[User talk:Qwertyxp2000|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Qwertyxp2000|contribs]]) 22:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
====Opposes====
====Further discussion====
{{archivebottom}}
== Proposed wording change for {{tlx|Uw-3rr}} template. ==
The current template has a line in it saying "Being involved in an edit war can result in '''your''' being blocked from editing." I think it makes more sense to say "you being blocked from editing" instead of "your being blocked from editing." [[User:Music1201|Music1201]] ([[User talk:Music1201|talk]]) 20:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:It's correct English. Maybe it's not correct American, though. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:Why use either? "Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing." sounds more straightforward to me. --[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-0.3em;line-height:1;font-size:50%;text-align:center;"><b>TALK<br />PAGE</b></span>]]) 07:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:''"Those involved in edit wars may be blocked from editing."'' [[User_talk:Fred_Gandt|<b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b>]] 09:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
== Uw-refimprove parameters ==
The documentation for {{tl|Uw-refimprove}} says that it supports an optional second parameter of "additional text" to add to the message displayed. However it doesn't -- any such parameter is now ignored. It woulfd be easy enough to add -- shall I? or should the doc be changed to remove this? The doc really should match the template one way or the other. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
: Add it. Many of the other uw- templates support this, so I see no reason that this one shouldn't. — [[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] <small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 21:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::{{done}} [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
== Time to deprecate Template:Uw-patrolled? ==
What is the point of [[:Template:Uw-patrolled]]? The instructions at [[WP:NPP]] say ''Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginal. If you are uncertain, leave the page unpatrolled, and another volunteer can review it later.'' In any case this is a voluntary project; if an editor wants to (for example) add categories to a brand new article but doesn't wish to mark it as patrolled, why does that necessitate a warning template? It seems to me that this template has no basis in policy and should be deprecated. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 19:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
ETA: Relevant previous discussion [[Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Archive_11#Template:Uw-patrolled|here]]. Pinging template creator {{ping|Fuhghettaboutit}}. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 19:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
ETA #2: The message in the template changed substantially early on in the template's history, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-patrolled&diff=next&oldid=252911262 here]. Not sure why the change in tone was considered beneficial, but it seems to have carried through to present day. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 19:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:I agree. I get a little miffed when reminded to mark pages as patrolled when I'm deliberately not marking them because I want other reviewers to review the pages. Is there a way to see how often the template is being used? - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 19:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:I do think the template serves a function, though it seems to have spent part of its life geared toward something I did not intend, or at least left out vital information to make it a useful (to both relevantly inform when placed, and when to use). It was intended at ''new'' new pages patrollers, doing approximately complete jobs, but allowing duplication of efforts by failing to mark the page as patrolled, and thus they would remain {{highlight|yellow|yellow}} at [[Special:NewPages]], so other would not be informed to skip the pages in question as already patrolled. Certainly this could use some documentation and changes in language to indicate 1) don't template the regulars 2) inform that it's geared toward ''new'' new pages patrollers 3) that not all pages should be marked patrolled and it's really only to inform those who may not know of the marking facility and why it is useful to do so. Unfortunaely, I never gave this a [[Template:Z number doc|Z number]], so it's very hard to tell whether it's been used appropriately, as intended, or gotten much use at all.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 21:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::I have tweaked the text to the way I think it should read, added a Z number for tracking, and will add documentation.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 22:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
== Edit request ==
{{editrequest|template:Uw-editsummary|answered=yes}}
Hi, Can someone make a slight adjustment to [[Template:Uw-editsummary|this template]] please? Currently the "optional message" field in in the middle of the layout. Could we have it moved down to the bottom, just before the final "Thanks"...? Right now if you add a message, it seems oddly out of place. I've noticed this parameter located at the bottom, just before the final sign-off on other notification templates and it seems more appropriate. I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the markup here and I don't want to mess it up. Thanks. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 20:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp -->
:Other editors may wish to discuss this suggestion below. [[User_talk:Fred_Gandt|<b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b>]] 23:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Fred_Gandt}} "Consensus"? This is a minor, uncontroversial change. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 01:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::You're requesting instead of suggesting a change to the layout of a standardised message. I am not willing to perform the edit for you, as I would prefer to ask for my peers' opinion first. [[User_talk:Fred_Gandt|<b style='font:1rem Arial;color:#066;text-decoration:inherit;'>f<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>red</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b>]] 02:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Have a look at [[Template:Uw-editsummary]] and you'll see what I mean. The optional message is (strangely) positioned in the middle, instead of at the end, like all the others. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 18:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
== New template ==
I wanted to suggest a new template for userspace, so I went ahead and created it. Please see [[Template:Uw-archive]]. I'm sure that if it's approved it will need additional documentation and possibly some changes, but have a look and let me know what you all think. Thanks - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 08:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:Such a template could find plenty of use, even with some admins; but anyone using it should be aware that the editors targeted, who ''ipso facto'' have substantial history at Wikipedia, might spurn it as [[WP:Don't template the regulars|"templating the regulars"]][[User:Noyster|: <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>]] [[User talk:Noyster|<span style="color:seagreen"> (talk),</span> ]] 09:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::I'd agree with Noyster's caution about templating the regulars. It's an area that seems to raise tensions rapidly of the {{red|"your talk page is for communication - it needs to be usable"}} against {{green|"it's '''''my''''' talk page, I'll run it how I like"}} variety. A memorable case in Dec 2014 resulted in a user block, forcible archiving, a lot of acrimony even among the admins enforcing the archiving, and [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#Talk page size|a lack of consensus]]. I'm not sure a template message would be the ideal tool to dial back the tensions. [[User:Bazj|Bazj]] ([[User talk:Bazj|talk]]) 15:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::OK, but TTR is not a reason to ''not'' have a template... any template. I created it because I thought it was worthwhile. Are you guys suggesting it be deleted because you're afraid somebody might use it on somebody else and upset them? - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 16:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Are you suggesting that someone who is '''''NOT''''' a regular would somehow have acquired a talk page >75k? Where would you use it? Why would you add a User Warning template on a user who isn't breaking any rules? [[User:Bazj|Bazj]] ([[User talk:Bazj|talk]]) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I've actually come across a few editors with lengthy talk pages who either didn't know about archiving or didn't attempt it because they didn't know how. Some guys with 10+ years of editing, posts from 2005, 150+ plus different sections, etc, etc. This is why I made the template. It's just a friendly "head's up", not a confrontational warning. You leave it and walk away. They can decide if they want to archive, and if they do, the links to the directions are right there. I don't see this as any different than <nowiki>{{uw-warn}}</nowiki>. I added that to several talk pages of editors with plenty of experience, and I never had a complaint - I've actually received a few 'thanks' for it. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 16:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC) <small>(btw - thanks for putting "not" in bold ''and'' caps... otherwise I might've missed it!</small>
::::::If it's not a warning, please don't give it a "uw-" name. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Even simple "notices" such as <nowiki>{{uw-warn}}</nowiki> have a "uw-" name. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">''[[User: Thewolfchild|<sup>the</sup>'''<big><em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF</em></big>'''<small>child</small>]]''</span> 01:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}
Just noting for the record that we already have {{tl|utverylong}}, which is simpler and much less confrontational. Observe:{{tl|utverylong}} [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 00:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:FYI, the nonstandardized archive template still exists at [[:Template:uw-archive]]. I've included at several pages and templates for reference. Personally, I wouldn't flinch if we went into a discussion about whether this template should be deleted, but I feel that, if it exists, it should have been at least integrated with the other single-notice templates. — '''''[[User:Andy M. Wang|Andy W.]]'' <small>([[User talk:Andy M. Wang|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Andy M. Wang|contrib]])</small>''' 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
:For housekeeping purposes:
:*[[:Template:uw-archive]]
:*[[:Template:uw-archive/doc]]
:*[[:Template:Single notice links]] (updated to include it)
:*[[:Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]] (updated to include it)
:*[[:Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Single-level templates]] (updated to include it)
:And just to clarify, the fact that the template is nonstandardized, and per [[WP:DTR]], I personally lean toward removing this template. If a user's talk page is seriously getting too long, it's their business. We have some articles at 500K and no notice on the talk about splitting them up. — '''''[[User:Andy M. Wang|Andy W.]]'' <small>([[User talk:Andy M. Wang|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Andy M. Wang|contrib]])</small>''' 19:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
==Consensus for adding A7 to [[template:Uw-hasty|Uw-hasty]]==
{{U|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} has added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-hasty&type=revision&diff=675017112&oldid=649556655 boldly added] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-hasty&oldid=prev&diff=712838278] A7 to [[template:Uw-hasty|Uw-hasty]], which I don't believe is supported by consensus for good reason. [[WP:A7]], a part of our speedy deletion policy, does not require waiting 10 (or 15 minutes) before tagging articles for speedy deletion, and there are good reasons for this. I'm concerned that editors using this template to warn other users are dispensing bad advice as if it were policy. A7 should be removed from this template until there is clear consensus to include it.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 11:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:I, for one, think tis is a good move. I normally decline to delete A7s if the tagging was done less than 10 minutes after the article was created. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::If you are also reviewing speedy deletion nominations within ten minutes of creation, then that makes sense, but you're probably not. There are simply some articles that it is clear have no hope from the very beginning. For example, autobiographies that are repeatedly recreated with the same content. This template should not reflect something that is inconsistent with policy, just because a couple of editors think the policy should be otherwise. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::{{u|DESiegel}} Warning users based on your preference rather than on policy... please!?!? If a change is going to happen then [[WP:CSD#A7]] needs to change '''''before''''' {{tl|uw-hasty}}. [[User:Bazj|Bazj]] ([[User talk:Bazj|talk]]) 19:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::There has been considerable discussion of this at [[WT:CSD]] at various times in the past, and a sizable number of the commentators there seem to agree that holding off on A7 tagging is a good practice. I have suggested making it mandatory -- to the level that repeatedly tagging too soon become a blockable offense. Obviously i wouldn't do that without clear consensus in advance. but this is not an out-of-the-blue new idea. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::A "sizeable number of the commentors" is, I assume, not quite consensus. It would be helpful to have links to any such recent discussions. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 03:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::When, for whatever reason, you're trying to assess a user's behaviour, you see a {{tl|uw-hasty}} on their talk page, how would you tell whether it was motivated for a breach of policy (speedy A1/A3) or a breach of etiquette (speedy A7). I don't dispute that waiting before tagging A7 may be more courteous, but it doesn't merit slapping the user with a warning that could be misinterpreted by other editors. WSC's suggestion below of a timer-tag fixes both ends of this issue very neatly. [[User:Bazj|Bazj]] ([[User talk:Bazj|talk]]) 16:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:'''Don't include''' Unlike A1 or A3, A7 isn't something that you can fix by adding to the article, since it's a problem with the subject. [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 19:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::{{reply|Jackmcbarn}} that is factually incorrect. Unlike [[WP:N|notability]], A7 eligibility is dependent on the article containing a ''plausible assertion'' of significance. It is trivial to add this to an A7-candidate about a notable subject. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:It is frequently a very good idea to hold off on A7 for a brand-new article. Is there a way we can communicate the ''suggestion'' that A7 shouldn't always be applied instantaneously after article creation without running afoul of the policy concerns that {{u|MrX}} points out? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::I think that would be a good compromise. If we assume that this template will be mostly used with inexperienced new page patrollers, then the ''suggestion'' to delay tagging an article A7 would seem to be good one.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 21:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:'''Include''' (also '''related discussion''') per my reasoning [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7_hastiness|here]]. [[User:Adam9007|Adam9007]] ([[User talk:Adam9007|talk]]) 21:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' In an ideal world this wouldn't be necessary. People would use good judgement, some A7 worthy articles would be tagged as that almost immediately and others would sit for a while. "xxxx is a 17 year old student at yyyy best known as our High school's prom Queen" would merit an A7 PDQ. "xxxx is 17 year old student at yyyyyy and our High school's prom Queen" might if left a few minutes gain the sentence "Best known for her career as a child actress playing aaaa in bbbbb." From from the tagging I've seen this sort of change is necessary. However we also need the appropriate technology. We need new pages to be NoIndex until patrolled, and I'd like to see time delayed deletion tags. These would be much like existing deletion tags, but only admins and patrolllers could see them, and if the article was edited again the tag would "lapse" and never become a live edit. That way the newpages could be processed and checked for attack pages as fast as they come in, but people submitting new articles would encounter a more credible process that didn't reject their work too fast to have seriously considered it or so fast that the crucial "best known for her Olympic Gold in 2012" didn't get time to be added. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 15:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::I like the idea of an automated fix that would prevent the issue arising rather than requiring that users be admonished for lack of courtesy. In a similar vein, [[Special:NewPages]] contains, at the head,a list of suggested start points, ''"Yellow highlights indicate pages that have not yet been patrolled. Please consider patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled backlog. Other options: 1 hour • 1 day • 5 days • 10 days • 15 days."'' Could a ''"15 minutes"'' option be added and made the default start point? [[User:Bazj|Bazj]] ([[User talk:Bazj|talk]]) 16:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Don't include''': If someone believes a page was hastily tagged for A7, they should leave ''personal'' message on the tagger’s talk page, explaining why ''in that case'' the tagging was hasty. Adding A7 to the templated message creates a false impression that the personal opinion of some editors has been enshrined in policy. IMO even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-hasty&diff=next&oldid=712922305 MrX’s compromise wording] may create confusion over policy: A better compromise might be “Some editors believe that pages should not be tagged for significance (CSD A7) moments after creation” or “In some cases pages should not be tagged for significance (CSD A7) moments after creation.” —[[User:teb728|teb728]] [[User talk:teb728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/teb728|c]] 19:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
*'''Include''' We shouldn't be hasty because we don't need to be hasty. There is no harm to the project by keeping such a page up for another 15 minutes or so - it ain't like copyright violations, attack pages, or spam, which do real damage. BTW, I once saw a page speedied which was about a pro-football player but the article neglected to mention this. This is exactly why waiting is a good idea. [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy/justasig|talk]]) 20:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
== Changes to the language in the level one templates ==
I have seen some people tinkering with the language of the level one templates, and I undone most of these changes based on testing done by the WMF. I am not necessarily opposed to changing the language the templates, though I do think we should have broader discussion here first. Any agreed changes should be done across all similar templates. The link to the testing is [[Meta:Template A/B testing/Results]], and the link to the previous RFC is [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings]].--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">[[User:Mojo Hand|Mojo Hand]] ''([[User talk:Mojo Hand|talk]])''</span> 18:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
== RFC: Suggestion: Visual Editor Version ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box
| title =
| title_bg = #C3C3C3
| title_fnt = #000
| quote = There is no consensus for the proposal. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
| width = 30%|halign=left}}
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
----
I suggest creating one made for visual editor as the editing summary box is in a different ___location then the source editors (the one this template was more or less based off of) [[User:Zppix|Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ]] ([[User talk:Zppix|talk]]) 17:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
===Support===
Support as proposer [[User:Zppix|Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ]] ([[User talk:Zppix|talk]]) 17:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
* '''Tentative''': if I understand correctly that the idea is to create a version of {{T|Uw-editsummary}} that shows where edit summaries go in the Visual Editor interface instead of the standard edit window, presumably to be used when the recipient’s edits are tagged VE, that sounds like a good idea. I don’t use VE myself, but I can imagine someone who does being confused by the illustration of an unfamiliar or irrelevant-seeming form. {{ping|Zppix|p=,}} please expand on the above proposal, providing some rationale, so people don’t have to guess what this is actually about.—[[User:Odysseus1479|Odysseus]][[User talk:Odysseus1479|'''<span style="color:slateblue;">1</span><span style="color:darkviolet;">4</span><span style="color:purple;">7</span>''']][[Special:Contributions/Odysseus1479|'''<span style="color:maroon;">9</span>''']] 04:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''', if I understand the proposal correctly. Sounds like a good idea. The visual editor ''does'' indeed handle adding edit summaries in a different way than the wikitext editor does. [[User:APerson|APerson]] ([[User talk:APerson|talk!]]) 05:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Somewhat support''': If the proposal is indeed what {{u|Odysseus}} is saying, this does seem like a good idea. Might be worth it to add as a parameter to the existing template though. — [[User:Crh23|<span style="font-size: 110%;background-color:#E90800; color:#000005;font-family:Garamond;"> '''crh''' <span style="color:White;"><sub>23</sub> </span></span>]]<small> ([[User Talk:Crh23|Talk]])</small> 19:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
===Oppose===
*'''Oppose''' Unnecessary [[WP:FORK|duplication]]. There is no need for a VE version of this page: these messages are used on user talk pages, where pages are displayed exactly the same whether people use VE or not; and since VE is not enabled for that namespace, the editing interface does not differ either. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 18:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', assuming Odysseus1479's clarification is correct. IMHO, this template does a fine job already. And, I don't think edit summaries work differently in VE; there is text box in both cases (VE and SE) in which the user enters text. We can add a VE screenshot to the existing template; but I suggest bearing in mind the [[80-20 rule]]. Best regards, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 06:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
===Comments===
*{{u|Zppix}}, which template are you talking about? [[User:APerson|APerson]] ([[User talk:APerson|talk!]]) 16:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
::Edit summary needed uw [[User:Zppix|Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ]] ([[User talk:Zppix|talk]]) 18:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
----
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
== uw-ewsoft biteyness ==
The {{tl|uw-ewsoft}} template (described by Twinkle as a "softer wording for newcomers") opens by saying hello and immediately telling the user that they ''"appear to be engaged in an edit war"'', which - in a message to a user unfamiliar with Wikipedia jargon - sounds quite bitey, defeating some of the point of a "soft" warning.
I suggest tweaking ''"You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary..."'' to ''"You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary..."'' and expanding ''"on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing"'' to ''"on Wikipedia this is known as [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]] and is usually seen as obstructing"''. Any thoughts? --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 10:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
:Good idea, I wholeheartedly agree with the suggested change. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC).
::I agree; another reason to explain ''edit warring'' as a ‘term of art’ here is that there appears to be a common public misconception that it includes what’s elsewhere called ''[[flaming (Internet)|flaming]]'' or similar hostile talk-page interactions that belong instead under the rubrics of [[WP:NPA]] or [[WP:BATTLE]].—[[User:Odysseus1479|Odysseus]][[User talk:Odysseus1479|'''<span style="color:slateblue;">1</span><span style="color:darkviolet;">4</span><span style="color:purple;">7</span>''']][[Special:Contributions/Odysseus1479|'''<span style="color:maroon;">9</span>''']] 21:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
:::Hi. "Elsewhere" is little too generic. At least in IMDb, edit warring is defined as any form of tug-of-war reverting, be it hostile or friendly. (In Wikipedia, hostility is needed. Friendly remedial editing is actually encouraged.) I've seen "edit warring" used in Wikia too, but because bullying the newcomer is the norm there, I couldn't work out a definition. (They revert newcomers just because!)
:::Oh, did forget to mention that I agree too? Sorry. Best regards, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
:{{done}}. Have gone ahead and made the change. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 09:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
== define "genre" in [[template:uw-genre2]] ==
Hello all- Does anyone know if the term "genre", as it appears in the above-linked template message, has a specific WP-related meaning, or is it purely general? For example, if I encounter a one-issue user who is making the same, unsourced change to many infoboxes relating to one subject (in this case historic battles), would this subject be an example of what the template intends with "genre"? Thanks in advance for any info. [[User:Eric|Eric]] [[User talk:Eric|<sup>talk</sup>]] 14:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Eric}} It's mainly used in connection with arts, principally music; see [[music genre]]. We get people who will edit the article about an album, and in the {{tlx|infobox album}}, alter the {{para|genre}} parameter to what they perceive to be "correct", others then alter it back - or even to something else again. Some of these can be very petty - "it's not ambient grunge, you idiot; it's grunge with ambience". But it is also relevant to books ([[literary genre]], {{tlx|infobox book}}), where edit-warring is somewhat less of a problem.
:I don't see how it might be relevant to battles, unless we assign "genres" (as in Napoleonic, trench-warfare, etc.) to battles. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 17:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
::{{reply_to|Redrose64}} Ah, thanks for the clarification! Should we add some indication of that in the template message text, maybe à la {{xt|(music, literature, art)}}? The word ''genre'' currently links to the wp article [[Genre]]. [[User:Eric|Eric]] [[User talk:Eric|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
== Uw-disruptive3 wording ==
I think the wording in [[Template:Uw-disruptive3]], if an article is linked, is confusing - "Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at (insert article here)." This wording makes it seem like the user has stopped editing disruptively at that article but is editing disruptively at other articles, but often, disruptive editors could possibly continue to edit at the same article. Any suggestions on alternate wording? [[User:Electricburst1996|<span style="color:#000FF0;">Electric</span>]][[User:Electricburst1996|<span style="color:#00FFFF;">Burst</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Electricburst1996|Electron firings]])</sup><sub>([[Special:Contributions/Electricburst1996|Zaps]])</sub> 15:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
:"Please stop editing disruptively, as you did at..." [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 17:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
::I like this one. --[[User:Marksomnian|Sincerely, Marksomnian.]] ([[User talk:Marksomnian|talk]]) 11:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
:::Agree. Another alternative: "Please stop making disruptive edits, such as those you made on ______" [[User:Eric|Eric]] [[User talk:Eric|<sup>talk</sup>]] 12:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
::::I think this is a little better than my own suggestion, which may not have entirely addressed the underlying concern. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
== Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2016 ==
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-spamublock|answered=yes}}
<!-- State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. -->
In [[Template:Uw-spamublock]], the version used for when talk page access is disabled does not mention the guide to appealing blocks. Can that please be added to the message? (If I could edit it, I would change the last sentence to something along the lines of "To do so, you should read the [[WP:GAB|guide to appealing blocks]], then contact administrators by submitting a request to the ''[[WP:UTRS|Unblock Ticket Request System]]''.")
<!-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes below. -->
—[[User:MRD2014|<span style="color:#B22F70"><b>MRD2014</b></span>]] [[User talk:MRD2014|'''T''']] [[Special:Contribs/MRD2014|'''C''']] 01:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> — [[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] <small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 04:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
== Template-protected edit request on 18 July 2016 ==
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-uhblock|answered=yes}}
The version of [[Template:Uw-uhblock]] that is used when talk page access is also disabled does not mention anything about the talk page access being revoked or the guide to appealing blocks. After the first sentence in the second paragraph, please add "Your ability to edit your talk page has ''also'' been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] to understand more about unblock requests, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the ''[[WP:Unblock Ticket Request System|Unblock Ticket Request System]]''.
—[[User:MRD2014|<span style="color:#8478F9"><b>MRD2014</b></span>]] [[User talk:MRD2014|'''T''']] [[Special:Contribs/MRD2014|'''C''']] 19:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> — [[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] <small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 21:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
== Template-protected edit request on 18 July 2016 ==
{{edit template-protected|Template:Uw-vaublock|answered=yes}}
The version of [[Template:Uw-vaublock]] that is used when talk page access is also disabled does not mention anything about the talk page access being revoked or the guide to appealing blocks. After the first sentence in the second paragraph, please add "Your ability to edit your talk page has ''also'' been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] to understand more about unblock requests, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the ''[[WP:Unblock Ticket Request System|Unblock Ticket Request System]]''.
—[[User:MRD2014|<span style="color:#8478F9"><b>MRD2014</b></span>]] [[User talk:MRD2014|'''T''']] [[Special:Contribs/MRD2014|'''C''']] 19:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
:No edit required. {{tl|uw-vaublock}} gets the relevant text from {{tl|uw-uhblock}}. — [[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] <small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 21:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
== Added optional diff parameter to no personal attack templates ==
I added an optional named parameter, <code>diff</code> to the no personal attacks series ({{tl|Uw-npa1}}, {{tl|Uw-npa2}}, {{tl|Uw-npa3}}, {{tl|Uw-npa4}}, {{tl|Uw-npa4im}}). It allows including the URL of the diff containing the personal attack. To fit the flow of the text, most of the diff links only render if the page is also specified. [[User:Mattflaschen|Mattflaschen]] - [[User_talk:Mattflaschen|Talk]] 05:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
==Comment removal template==
I am not very familiar with templates. If a user blanks a section you create on a talk page like at [[special:diff/731788343]] what would be the appropriate template to use to warn the user not to do this?
I can't remember the name of the rule but I'm pretty sure it is against policy to do that. [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze|talk]]) 14:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
:As long as it's not a user blanking material on their own talk page, [[:Template:uw-delete1]] may apply. Essentially, users shouldn't delete material without providing a rationale in the edit summary. I'm not going to speak to this specific instance. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 19:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
== Inclusion of uw-tdel ==
I'm a bit surprised I'm not seeing {{tlx|uw-tdel1}} and {{tlx|uw-tdel2}} listed at [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates]]. Is there any reason they aren't included? [[User:Uanfala|Uanfala]] ([[User talk:Uanfala|talk]]) 22:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
:{{done}} I've added them now. I hope no-one objects. [[User:Uanfala|Uanfala]] ([[User talk:Uanfala|talk]]) 19:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
== Copy edits to Template:Uw-uhblock-double for more better results ==
# I removed reference to trolling. When dealing with trolls, avoid the T-word. That just [[WP:DENY|gets them excited]] and [[WP:BEANS|encourages more trolling]].
# The phrase "nor...ever tolerated" is untrue. Regrettably, we tolerate a lot of disruptive behavior. I change it to "nor...ever allowed". Just because we let people get away with disruption for a while before blocking them doesn't mean that it is allowable.
# The last sentence was rather convoluted and thus harder to read and understand. The key to these messages actually working is that they should be understandable and over-polite. So, "below this notice, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first" became "below this notice. For best results please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-uhblock-double&diff=prev&oldid=733377823]
Thanks. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 11:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
==Using a template triggered an alert notification==
After removing a minor instance of vandalism by a new IP user, I left a message on his talk page using <nowiki>{{subst:Uw-vandalism1|article}}</nowiki>. I've done this many times before, but unusually this time I found it also triggered this alert notification to myself:
''You mentioned yourself on 101.181.232.116 in "101.181.232.116". ''
''Hello, I'm Bahudhara. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ma ''.
This seems to be an unintended consequence of changes somewhere else. Cheers, [[User:Bahudhara|Bahudhara]] ([[User talk:Bahudhara|talk]]) 00:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
: Same here, having used {{tl|uw-delete1}}. --[[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 01:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Strange_notifications]] --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 01:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
== Conversation in article talk space ==
I propose that references to ''Article'' in the documentation for {{tl|uw-chat1}} etc should be to ''Talk:Article'', eg:
:{| border="1" cellpadding="10"
! What to type !! What it makes
|-
| {{tlsp|uw-chat1|<nowiki>Talk:Article</nowiki>}}
| {{uw-chat1|Talk:Article|subst=nosubst|demo=1}}
|}
This gives "... talk pages such as [[Talk:Article]] ...", which makes more sense than "... talk pages such as [[Article]] ...", because the latter does not link to a talk page. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 13:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Multi-level_templates&diff=737041931&oldid=732390210 Done]. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 11:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
There are others that should also have a similar change, for the same reason, eg:
* [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates#Editing of others' talk page contributions without due cause]]
* [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/User talk namespace/Single-level templates]] - uw-upv, uw-subst
[[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 11:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
== Some new form messages for NPP ==
Hello all. I've started to develop some new form messages for new editors, that I hope will be more friendly and informal than the default Twinkle messages. They're listed on [[User:Blythwood/Template messages for NPP|my user subpage]]. I'd be really keen to hear what people think about them and if they have any suggestions for improvements.
I'm not proposing to submit these as official templates (not for the foreseeable future, anyway), but I hope that some people might find them useful. [[User:Blythwood|Blythwood]] ([[User talk:Blythwood|talk]]) 07:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
:As I stated elsewhere I like the tone of these messages, a more friendly way than the "official" templates of reaching out to the good-faith and reasonably literate new editors whom we want to encourage. I shall certainly be plagiarising them[[User:Noyster|: <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>]] [[User talk:Noyster|<span style="color:seagreen"> (talk),</span> ]] 08:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
== I just created a new uw template ==
I just created [[Template:Uw-1rr]] because I couldn't find a general template I could use with 1RR-restricted reversions. (I based it off of [[Template:Uw-3rr]].) The thing is, I'm not sure I went about creating it the right way. Is there an official process for this kind of stuff? Does it need to be approved or anything like that? I've never created a template for Wikipedia before. -- [[User:Gestrid|Gestrid]] ([[User talk:Gestrid#top|talk]]) 20:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
:I don't see anything technically wrong with your new template. But I am puzzled as to its proper use. It mentions:
::''while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—''even if you don't violate the one-revert rule''.
:I don't recall ever encountering the [[WP:1RR]] rule. Even reading that guideline sheds little light. Then there is the much more mysterious [[WP:0RR]] (zero revert rule). Frankly, both of these smack of [[entrapment]]. Maybe you can explain the logic behind all of this? —[[user:EncMstr|EncMstr]] ([[user talk:EncMstr|talk]]) 16:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|EncMstr}} The 1RR rule is mainly used in articles under ArbCom sanctions, such as, for example, the Arab-Israeli conflict (see [[WP:ARBPIA]]). As for the sentence you quoted, that's a modified version of what {{tlx|uw-3rr}} says (one revert instead of three). The reason I decided to keep it is because someone can continue to revert other people (aka edit-war) and only revert after the 24 hours have expired, which means it wouldn't be a 1RR violation. -- [[User:Gestrid|Gestrid]] ([[User talk:Gestrid#top|talk]]) 19:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
== Uw-thumb1 .. uw-thumb4 ==
I question the creation/addition of these templates:
* The use of thumb may contradict [[WP:INFOBOXIMAGE]], but it's a big step to interpret its use as deliberately disruptive.
* Uploading an image on [[:c:|Commons]], using the [[:c:Special:UploadWizard|UploadWizard]], the uploader is presented with a link to copy & paste which includes the thumb parameter.
* Is there consensus for this being a 4-step violation?
In short, this series of cautions presumes, without any basis in policy, that an occasional contributor of images, following the guidance given on commons, is deserving of a block after their 4th upload & use of that image. I propose removing the templates from this page & nominating for deletion.
::<small>ping {{u|Zackmann08}} as author</small> [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 12:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' — The thumb syntax is incorrect for infoboxes, producing the wrong visual result, so it is disruptive if they keep doing it after being told that and informed of the correct way to add images to infoboxes. If they ignore or fail to learn from polite requests to use the correct syntax, that seems to be a [[WP:CIR]] and/or [[WP:IDHT]] type of issue, which can often result in a block. It's not a case of deserving a block after 4th use of an image, but after ignoring or failing to respond to requests to use the correct syntax. Innocent mistakes are fine, failing to learn from them is not. [[User:Murph9000|<span style="color:white;background-color:purple;padding:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em 1em;">Murph</span><span style="color:white;background-color:black;padding:0.1em 1em 0.1em 0.1em;">9000</span>]] ([[User talk:Murph9000|talk]]) 12:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
*:{{u|Murph9000}}, checking my upload history on commons I see my last upload before today was over 7 years ago. Do you really think I should be required to know that the code snippet given to me authoritatively by commons is wrong? I still don't see anywhere that it was agreed this error is a 4-steps-to-the-exit offence. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 13:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
*::{{Re|Cabayi}} The syntax is wrong, repeatedly using it is disruptive (as it does not produce the correct visual result and requires other editors to fix the mistake). Do you really think it is reasonable for someone to ignore recent polite requests to use the correct syntax? No reasonable editor should be going past level 1 or level 2 of this in a short timescale, and those that keep doing it are disruptive editors. It is extremely useful to have a standard template to inform people of the problem and educate them in the correct way of doing it. People who persist in this will be receiving up to level 4 warnings whether or not this template exists, but this at least gives them a specific standard message with good advice. There is clear consensus to support blocking people who persist in incompetent or disruptive editing after polite and fair warnings and education about it. If Commons is giving out bad advice, that should be fixed. I do think you should be required to know that the advice given by Commons is incorrect if you have recently received a polite message about it which both informs you of the problem and includes the correct advice. [[User:Murph9000|<span style="color:white;background-color:purple;padding:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em 1em;">Murph</span><span style="color:white;background-color:black;padding:0.1em 1em 0.1em 0.1em;">9000</span>]] ([[User talk:Murph9000|talk]]) 13:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
*:::{{u|Murph9000}}, none of the 4 warnings mentions that commons has it wrong. Given that most folks think of Wikipedia as one coherent whole, not as a bunch of bickering fiefdoms, it seems more likely they'd also assume the advice they're receiving TODAY at commons is more up-to-date than the advice they received here on enwiki last week.
*:::Rather than marching users towards the exit for making the wrong choice from conflicting instructions, and pointlessly alienating them, wouldn't it make more sense to have a bot silently fix the error? [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 14:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose (Template creator)''' - {{ping|Cabayi}} Thanks for bringing this up. I obviously disagree as the template creator. My main note is that I do NOT think that someone who has the occasion miss-edit is worthy of a block, but repeated offenders may be. To be more specific... If you have a user who makes this mistake once, then a month or two later makes it again, the again a month later, etc.. That is not someone I think is worthy of blocking. The editor this template is intended to "target" (for lack of a better word) is the editor who makes these same edits day after day. At which point they really are becoming disruptive. It is meant for the editor who has been warned about this issue multiple times and has flat out ignored it. Editors who simply make the mistake, no problem!!! [[WP:AGF|AGF]] and just let them know "Hey, here's what you did wrong". But the editor who just continues to ignore the correction and do it wrong day after day... They deserve the warning and eventual block if they continue to make the disruptive edits. Hope that makes sense. Looking forward to hearing other opinions. --[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:DarkTurquoise;">Zackmann08</span>]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 15:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
== Rewording ==
I would like to see a sentence in {{tlx|Uw-notenglish}} changed from {{tq|We invite you to translate it into English}} into {{tq|We invite you to get it translated into English by a competent translator, not relying on machine translation.}} The current wording practically invites the contributor of an article in another language to stick the piece through a machine translator, which of course [[WP:MACHINETRANSLATION|we discourage]][[User:Noyster|: <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>]] [[User talk:Noyster|<span style="color:seagreen"> (talk),</span> ]] 11:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
A case in point: a new article was created in another language [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cristian_Onofrei&oldid=623242218], then the creator took up [[:User_talk:Cosonel|the invitation]] to translate it into English, leaving us with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cristian_Onofrei&oldid=623250929 this][[User:Noyster|: <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>]] [[User talk:Noyster|<span style="color:seagreen"> (talk),</span> ]] 15:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
:What in the name of William Webb Ellis does "it was practically a finals decided his magic foot '''Cristian Onofrei''' managed to pass in 19 points in an essay, two transformations, and four penalty kicks" mean? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 15:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
*I agree that we should not facilitate machine translations, but the wording might be too difficult for the intended recipient. How about {{tq|We invite you to translate it into '''proper''' English, but/so please do not add an [[WP:MACHINETRANSLATION|automated translation]].}} (that last bit is inspired by {{tl|Not English}}). --[[User:HyperGaruda|HyperGaruda]] ([[User talk:HyperGaruda|talk]]) 19:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
::[[WP:KISS]] definently applies here, the message should be kept as simple as possible because the person reading will probably be relying on machine ranslation just to read the message. I personally find it better to try an determine what language they have posted in and use the appropriate template from [[Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages]] but I know not everyone goes to the trouble to do that, and not every single language is listed there. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
:::That's certainly a better idea. Is it possible to connect a Contrib-xx1 template to {{tl|Not English}} once the language parameter has been defined, like the user notification source code that appears in deletion templates? --[[User:HyperGaruda|HyperGaruda]] ([[User talk:HyperGaruda|talk]]) 04:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Thank you {{U|Beeblebrox}}, I hadn't known of these templates but they convey a quite different message: instead of "Please translate it into English or see it deleted" these templates say "Go away and put it into your own language's Wikipedia" where it may well have come from originally. Shouldn't we aim to be consistent and agree which message, if either, we wish to send in these cases?[[User:Noyster|: <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>]] [[User talk:Noyster|<span style="color:seagreen"> (talk),</span> ]] 09:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
== Template:Anonblock hard ==
There's an editor who keeps on altering the wording of [[Template:Anonblock hard]], without discussing it; they claim that "it doesn't need discussion". There are several IPs involved, but they may all be the same actual person. {{user|NQ}} has suggested "block evasion" in an edit summary, so this IP may be a sockpuppet. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 09:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
== Creating new UWs ==
Hello! I decided I wanted to add some new uw- templates for specific situations I had not seen templates for, but have come across before. Is there a specific process for making uw templates or do I simply create the pages and start using them? As well, are there any suggestions for better wording in my templates?
Here are the templates I have made so far:
* [[User:NOTNOTABLE/uw-citereplace1|uw-citereplace1]], [[User:NOTNOTABLE/uw-citereplace2|2]], [[User:NOTNOTABLE/uw-citereplace4|3]], [[User:NOTNOTABLE/uw-citereplace4|4]], and [[User:NOTNOTABLE/uw-citereplace4im|4im]]. [[User:NOTNOTABLE|NOTNOTABLE]] ([[User talk:NOTNOTABLE|talk]]) 17:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
:We already have templates that cover any unexplained removal of content, so these seem unecessary to me. Also "cited" is wiki-speak argon, which should be avoided in templates that are probably going to be used mostly to correct new users. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
== Question about how to use warnings ==
Hi All - is there a place I can read about how to properly use warnings? I assume warnings should generally progress from 1->5, but when I see first edits from a new account that are clearly and purposely vandalism - not in good faith - my inclination is to go right to 3 or 4, especially if the article is a BLP. Anyway I'm sure there are guidelines somewhere and I'd love to see them. -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 03:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
:You're looking for this: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout]]. [[User:Ramaksoud2000|Ramaksoud2000]] <sup>('''[[User talk:Ramaksoud2000|Talk to me]]''')</sup> 03:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Ramaksoud2000}} exactly what I was looking for, thank you! -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] ([[User talk:Darouet|talk]]) 04:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
| |||