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 |
||
| (26 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 408:
{{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]])
:For housekeeping purposes:
:*[[:Template:uw-archive]]
Line 417:
:*[[: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]])
==Consensus for adding A7 to [[template:Uw-hasty|Uw-hasty]]==
Line 442:
== 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|'''<
*'''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)
Line 456 ⟶ 464:
*{{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)
| |||