Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 12: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 1,222:
::Agreed, I think this is a good idea. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 15:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
::: Now {{done}} [[User:Pol430|<font color="#00008B">'''Pol430'''</font>]] [[User talk:Pol430|<font color="#9966CC">''talk to me''</font>]] 15:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
*Wait, so now you can no longer warn someone specifically for violating the 3rr rule? That is a pretty big change in practice, and I think its a bad idea. The 3rr warning is such a bright line rule, while edit warring is less clear, it makes a straight 3rr warning much clearer and less subject to dispute. Also, if it stays, documentation at places like [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] will need updating. [[User:Monty845|<
::::What's up with the update to Twinkle? [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 17:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
*:Also, the target of the redirect doesn't even mention the 3 revert rule. The template is in no way redundant. [[User:Monty845|<
*::Twinkle has 2 edit warring warnings, but neither is explicit enough about 3RR for my liking. People aren't going to understand this and may feel mistreated. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
::::The template {{tl|Uw-ewsoft}} makes mention of [[WP:3RR]] in a softer fashion. If mention of 3rr were inserted into {{tl|Uw-ew}} would that resolve the concerns? It seems that 3 templates on the matter of edit warring is a bit much. We don't want a situation where people are using these as 'incremental' warnings. Of all the templates in the Uw- series the edit warring related templates have been subject to the most controversy and change. They were both heavily revamped last year. [[User:Pol430|<font color="#00008B">'''Pol430'''</font>]] [[User talk:Pol430|<font color="#9966CC">''talk to me''</font>]] 16:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::{{tl|uw-3RR}} is certainly a last warning template, and is in most cases followed up immediately by a report to [[WP:ANEW]] if ignored. It could be merged into {{tl|Uw-ew}}, but then you run into the issue that its grouping a bunch of different conduct together, and its not as clear what specific conduct the person is being warned about. Keeping them separate ensures that if you get a 3rr warning, you know without ambiguity that you have been warned for 3rr, and there is no question that it may have been a more generic edit warring warning. See also [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Revised_proposal:Proposal_to_ban_instant_blocking_for_all_editors_over_3RR_unless_a_warning_has_been_issued_first]] which if adopted would very much hinge on a specific 3rr warning. [[User:Monty845|<
:::::: Fair point and thanks for the pointer to that VP proposal. Although, violating 3rr comes about through edit warring, and both templates contain a fair amount of mutual language. Perhaps it is {{tl|uw-ew}} that should be redirected to {{tl|uw-3RR}}. Leaving {{tl|uw-ewsoft}} and {{tl|uw-3RR}}? [[User:Pol430|<font color="#00008B">'''Pol430'''</font>]] [[User talk:Pol430|<font color="#9966CC">''talk to me''</font>]] 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
{{unindent}} What do you guys think about merging our new template with one of the pre-existing ones? [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 21:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:I don't really see how that is relevant to the discussion at hand!? [[User:Pol430|<font color="#00008B">'''Pol430'''</font>]] [[User talk:Pol430|<font color="#9966CC">''talk to me''</font>]] 15:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::Redirecting that way seems less objectionable, but I still prefer the separate warnings that differentiate what the person is being warned for. The uw-3rr does include some none-3rr edit warring language, but is clearly a warning to stop someone from committing/continuing a 3rr violation, and throws in the warning about the more expansive definition of edit warring to discourage gaming. For instance, we maintain a variety of very granular warnings based on other types of conduct, for example {{tl|Uw-vandalism3}} and {{tl|Uw-disruptive3}}, while it would be simple to merge them, there is utility in having the warning be as specific as possible to the conduct being warned for. [[User:Monty845|<
:::How can we add this template to Twinkle? [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 21:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Some admins may prefer to give one warning rather than another (3RR rather than EW, or vice versa). Regular editors can also give the warnings, and I don't see why their freedom ought to be restricted. Eliminating one of the warning templates is a bit like forbidding people from doing the warning you personally don't use. We tolerate a diversity of views on how best to warn, and nothing has changed recently in the [[WP:EW|edit warring policy]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,405:
::I'm not involved in creating these templates, but I think Fuhghettaboutit is right. It sounds too automated. It seems like a more personal way of getting around to it is best. If you're trying to defuse a situation, a personal touch is always the best route. I realize that Fughettaboutit's motive may have been slightly different. I'm not trying to speak for you! [[User:Lighthead|<b><font color="#CCCC00">'''Lighthead'''</font></b>]] [[User talk:Lighthead|<sup>þ</sup>]] 05:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Agreed, while template messages are valuable for dealing with new users consistently, when it comes to more complex applications of policy such as RFC neutrality, a more personalized response is really needed. Perhaps indicating the specific verbiage that is the problem, and how it could be worded more neutrally or otherwise brought in line with policy. [[User:Monty845|<
::::Personal touches can be included with a template by utilizing "additional text" space. But thanks for your guys' thoughts. [[User:Zepppep|Zepppep]] ([[User talk:Zepppep|talk]]) 05:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
== [[Template:Db-attack-notice]] needs modification ==
This template needs a tweak. Specifically the function that links to the nominated article needs to be removed. What we are doing now is saying " you have created a completely innapropriate page that should not exist. Here are handy pointers that will be forever preserved on your talk page so people know who you were attacking". In this one and only case, linking to the soon to be deleted article is not appropriate. I recently had to take several suppresssion actions related to the use of this template because, as is often the case with attack pages, even the title itself was not appropriate. I have tried to remove the function myself but apparently I don't know how to do that. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
:What about piping all references to the page and using a generic descriptor like, [[Test|This page you created]]. While it would still leave the attack page name in the wikicode, it would not be visible. [[User:Monty845|<
::That would be even worse actually because in a case like the one I recently encountered it was important to completely remove the article title from Wikipedia to the extent that it could not be seen even by administrators. Having it hidden in the code but not visible on the page would mean potentially libelous statements would be preserved there and oversighters would probably not catch it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
::: To create an accurate but inoffensive link, you could use a full URL to link to the deleted page by its <code><nowiki>{{PAGEID}}</nowiki></code> using the <code>?curid=''nnnnnn''</code> parameter, or to link to the most recent <code><nowiki>{{REVISIONID}}</nowiki></code> of the deleted page using the <code>?oldid=''nnnnnn''</code> parameter. For example, to link to the latest version of this page without using the page title: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&curid={{PAGEID}} (The magic words do not seem to support automating the IDs for other pages other than the ones on which they are used, but the REVISIONID value can be seen in the "Permanent link" URL in the margin of each page before it is deleted.) — [[User:Richardguk|Richardguk]] ([[User talk:Richardguk|talk]]) 22:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,420:
When notifying users on their user talk page after a page they have created is tagged for speedy deletion as an [[WP:ATTACK|attack page]], should we include a link to the page in the notice or in the edit summary? Please answer '''Yes''' or '''No''' and include your rationale. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 16:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''No''', absolutely not, per Beeblebrox above. Not infrequently the title itself is an attack - "''X, the gayest w****r in Blankville''" and the like - and even if not, the title usually contains the name of the person attacked. On no account should that be left visible. The existing {{tl|uw-attack}} is fine, and Okeyes has agreed at [[Wikipedia talk:Page Curation#Warning attackers]] to use that for the new Page Curation system. Reading lower down, I see that maybe the header for the warning is the issue, but for attack warnings the header too must '''not''' link the article title. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
*Beeblebrox makes some strong points, but at the same time, I think it is important to identify as clearly as possible to an editor being warned what exactly it was they did wrong. While very few creators of page that are tagged G10 are acting in good faith, in the event that they are acting in goodfaith, notifying them that some page they created or contributed to has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, but not giving them any way to know which page it is (without having the expertise to check the contribution history of the notifier or something of the sort), gives them no recourse and doesn't educate them as to which action they took was problematic. In essence, it assumes a G10 nomination getting deleted is a fait accompli. I still would like to find a middle ground; what about having a different template message for page names that are themselves G10 level attacks, while having a link to the nominated page when the page title is not offensive in and of itself? If it had to be a yes/no vote, I'm not sure which side I'd come down on. [[User:Monty845|<
::If a page is actually deleted per G10 that mans two pairs of eyes, tagger and admin, agree that it is an attack. The response time on attack pages is usually fast enough, thanks to the little red bar on the admin dashboard, that it is very unlikely the page author will not know what page is meant. Page authors often do question the deletion - a frequent line is "''It was a joke! He's my friend and doesn't mind!''" I think the risk that a good faith contribution is deleted as an attack and the author doesn't know which page it was is negligible, compared to the danger of leaving on view in talk page notices the names of people attacked, linked with the fact that they have been the subject of an attack. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 19:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''No'''. I can see the benefit in linking, but it seems a possible risk. I'd like to think our oversighters can manage the "what links here" tool, but that still leaves time with the link (arguably unnecesarily) on the page. I would say that the most commonly used templates (such as the ones Twinkle uses) should not link. If there is a question by the (accidental?) vandal later, then editors can always put a link if necessary and appropriate. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] ([[User talk:Nouniquenames|talk]]) 18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,523:
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you restore defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further notice.'''
*Material can be defamatory, true, and well sourced all at the same time. If this is going to be a separate waring from the BLP violation, it needs to emphasize that the problem with the defamatory content being restored is NOT that it is defamatory, but that it is defamatory AND inadequately source. [[User:Monty845|<
:What's the problem with the current defamatory series templates (eg {{tl|uw-defamatory2}})? '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 16:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,803:
::I'm afraid you've completely missed my point. The brutal reality (outside the lala-land of AGF at all costs) is that in the vast majority of vandalism cases all we really need is for the vandal to <s>fuck off and die</s> go away, because the vandalism is most often not a good faith editing "error". I object to my username being so prominently displayed as the first wikilink in the template message because the issue is not about me, it's about the article and the actions of the recipient of the warning. [[WP:NOTSOCIAL|Wikipedia is not Social Media]], personalities are completely irrelevant - building the encyclopedia is about process, "please leave your personality at the door". [[User:Dodger67|Roger]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 14:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I've got no problem with my name being first link [[User talk:120.42.28.67#March 2013|here]]. I deliberately started at level 1 and the guy didn't get it. Whether the uw-messages work or not is another matter... --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 15:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I've always thought that it was better for a disruptive editor to be disruptive at my talk page then for them to continue to disrupt articles. If including the personal part of the message results in that, I think its an added bonus. Further, if an editor really is acting in good faith, and talking can sort out the issue, we should be willing to talk at pretty much any place on-wiki to do it. [[User:Monty845|<
:Roger, just for reference in case you we arrived at the current wording after about six months of controlled testing through WikiProject User Warnings, and an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings|30-day RFC]] to discuss the templates that performed best in testing. I understand that vandalfighters don't all feel comfortable being "in the spotlight" so to speak, but here's a few points we learned through the whole testing and rewrite project...
# Many new and anonymous editors have a hard time understanding that they were reverted by a person, another editor like them, not a software system like a bot. Our signatures aren't enough, and that's why the language was generally changed from totally impersonal, passive voice to a first person voice and an invitation to talk.
| |||