Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 12: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:55, 24 February 2020

Revision as of 12:59, 13 June 2021

Line 751:

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] '''Do not remove block notices while a block is in force'''. Removing the block notice from your user talk page while you are blocked can be a sign of [[WP:TEND|tendentious]] or [[WP:DIS|disruptive editing]] and may result in the block being extended.

Any thoughts? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] _{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color:maroon;">One ping only]]</fontspan>]]} 18:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:That's possibly the stupidest policy subsection we currently have, mainly because the "consensus" formed for it was among a load of people who, for the most part, don't understand the purpose of a block notice. But still, if we're going to have a template for it, there's no need for it to be so aggressive. A simple "you're not allowed to remove that" would suffice, because if they're doing it just to be disruptive, they'll soon find themselves without talk page access. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 19:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

::Is that even policy? I'm doubtful. I think a template for it is silly. If you're going tell someone they shouldn't remove something from their talk page (it's not tendentious and the disruption is mainly caused by the reverter) you should have decency to explain the real reason for it if you can come up with one. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] ^{[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]} 19:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Alright. :) It was just a pondering thought. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] _{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color:maroon;">One ping only]]</fontspan>]]} 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Whether or not an editor can remove a(n active) block-notice from his own talk-page is a long-standing topic of debate. Last I knew, there was a long-standing (albeit contentious) guideline that editors ''were'' allowed to remove it unless they were contesting it (anyone who cares could know about the block, but if discussing the block important to see what is being discussed). However, apparently that has now changed and even uncontested block-messages must remain. I think? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

:[[WP:CAIN]] comes to mind here. If someone uses an {{tl|unblock}} template, they are presumably blocked, and it's not hard to check out why. Please keep in mind that a blocked editor cannot edit pages other than their own talk page, and I don't see how the removal of a block notice constitutes ''by itself'' disruptive editing of one's own talk page. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-^{<span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span>}- timed 17:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Line 763:

== Template color ==

Just out of curiousty, why is the "username soft block" warning (uw-ublock) template orange backgrounded, while "promotional username soft block" (uw-softerblock) is blue? The blue is more in line with the "softer" part, I'd think - shouldn't all the softerblock templates be blue? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] _{<font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color:maroon;">One ping only]]</fontspan>]]} 08:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

== Child friendly messages ==