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 |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 4 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 454:
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 473:
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|'''<
:::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!)
Line 488:
== 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|<
:"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)
Line 606:
*:::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)
| |||