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) |
m Fix Linter errors. More needed. |
||
Line 4:
Quite often I see contributions like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kannada&action=historysubmit&diff=415568507&oldid=414509010 this]. It looks to be in good faith, but it has two issues, 1) its not NPOV and 2) its not sourced. It would be really great if there was a template that let me say both those things at once. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
: Previously when I have encountered this problem, I have just selected which ever template seems to represent the greater violation. Also I generally use [[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle]] to warn (unless I'm [[WP:HG|Huggling]]). Twinkle allows you to add free text onto the end of a warning and I believe most templates support linking; you can also do this manually using an appropriately placed pipe symbol when placing the template code. Whilst a combined template is a good idea on one hand, how many do we create? There are a great many potential combinations. [[User:Pol430|<
::I suppose it could follow {{Tl|Multiple issues}}. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>23:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
:::The thing is more than other issues NPOV and Unsourced go hand in hand. Additional messages would be OK, but I'm not 100% on the wording - and would then have to save them somewhere (a user template would be great for this :p). -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 23:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::: Hmm, unfortunately, I personally, remain unsold on the idea of combined warnings. I feel it could lead to an unnecessary boom in the already voluminous uw-template collection. If you are going to warn about two policy infractions for one edit, why not just deliver two separate warnings that already exist—one after the other? [[User:Pol430|<
::::: That wouldbe taken care of with a {{Tl|Multiple warnings}}. However I do agree that often it's best to pick an editor up on just the main point, to avoid muddying the message. (Hence my preference for ''simple'' warning templates.) ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>12:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
== UW-3rr ==
Line 14:
:So instead of
{{{icon|[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]]}}} You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]] according to the reverts you have made on [[:George Bush]]. Users who [[WP:DISRUPT|edit disruptively]] or refuse to [[Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT|collaborate]] with others may be blocked if they continue.<br />
In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] states that:
# '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block'''.
Line 23:
:something like-
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] There appears to be an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]] which you may be involved in,   according to the reverts you have made on [[:George Bush]]. Users who [[WP:DISRUPT|edit disruptively]] including breaking the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] may find themselves blocked.<br />
*If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors.
*Alternatively you can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br /><!-- Template:uw-3rr -->
Line 29:
:''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
:: I made the changes that show 3rr in it's current light. I'm not adverse to toning down the block !threats; however, I feel the message should make it clear that continuing to edit war ''may'' result in a block ''without further notice''. This notice is specifically aimed at violations of 3rr. The message should also maintain parity with other 'single issue warnings' in the UW-series; in so much as, it should serve to deliver a strong cease and desist warning. I feel the language you propose is more akin to an L2 message from the multi level templates and is not in-keeping with the faith assumption this warning intends to convey. [[User:Pol430|<
:::I think the block threat shouldn't be so prominent too. There should also be a template for repeat violations.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] ([[User talk:Jasper Deng|talk]]) 22:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::: Could you please expand on how you feel giving repeated, or additional, warnings is appropriate in a 3rr situation? 3rr is defined in the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring policy]] as a [[Bright-line rule]]; meaning, you have either breached it, or you haven't. [[User:Pol430|<
:::Hm, what can I say, I'm a nice guy. But certainly I take your point about the strength of the message being important - and the imminence of a block. I'll try and revisit soon, unless someone beats me to it. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
{{Uw-3rr/sandbox|demo=1|George Bush|''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>23:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />}}
: <del>I've had a quick look again at the wording, and I entirely take your point about repeated use of the word 'block', although I have not yet been able (yet) to think of a suitable rewording. I'll have a think on it also.</del> [[User:Pol430|<
:: Ignore the above I hadn't actually noticed your revision of the template above (silly blind me!). I think the above version is fine. [[User:Pol430|<
:::OK well, lets try it out and see if there are any problems - change made. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>16:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
::::The current version is very watered-down. I don't think it will be effective for a certain subset of inexperienced users who also have a tendency to edit-war because they believe they are right. The previous warning "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." should be reinstated. Some more bolding to highlight key points of the text may be helpful as well. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 07:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
{{od|::::}}
I did find the previous version quite effective at stopping newer editors from edit warring and instead engaging in discussion. See [[Goldgenie]] and its talk page as an example. [[User:Pol430|<
:* We could re-instate the "do not... " warning.
:* I am not sure a plethora of bolding is a good idea. If points are not key they should be dropped - short and sweet.
Line 51:
::Reply to Rich: I think that the new template will not be as effective in the really hard cases. Have a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Agitatov here]. It took a page protection and an admin to stop this incident, in addition to the stronger template. If we had the watered-down version of the template I don't think it would have any real effect. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 12:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} Point taken that the effectiveness of the revised version can not, yet, be judged. I'll have another think on it later and see what I can come up with—in respect of addressing both concerns—then publish it here - unless someone beats me to it [[User:Pol430|<
::::Great. I'll wait to see your version. Rich just added a bolded statement that strengthens the template message. I also liked the "Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block." but, as I said, I can wait. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 12:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 63:
{{od|:}}How about:
{{{icon|[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]]}}} You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT|collaborate]] with others and avoid editing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]].<br />
In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] states that:
# '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.'''
Line 69:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you continue to edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further notice.'''
It makes the points Dr.K covers but tones down the use of the word block. I have bolded points 1 and 2 because I feel it draws the eye to what is relevant, I have also created a version that shows these points in ''italics'' rather than bold if consensus is that bolding is too aggressive. You can view them side by side in [[User:Pol430/Sandbox2|my sandbox]]. [[User:Pol430|<
:It looks good. It avoids the redundancy of the older version but keeps the salient points. I think it would be as effective as the older version. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 12:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:: I sent Rich a TB but he has not responded yet, I will leave this up for another day to see if there is any further discussion and then make the change (by the admittedly smallest possible consensus of 2). [[User:Pol430|<
:::The previous change was enacted by a similarly small consensus. I wouldn't worry about that. There is also [[WP:SILENCE]]. Thank you for the great work. Take care. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 10:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 79:
:::::I agree. I never thought that designing a template would be so complex. One must strike a balance between deterrence and unnecessary repetition in the message of the template, while at same time being as kind as possible to the edit-warrior. It is a really interesting problem, but ideally one may need to have a degree in Applied Psychology specializing in behavioural modification to be able to really say that they can design a good warning template. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 10:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
{{od|:::::}}More than 24hrs later and no further discussion points — changes made. [[User:Pol430|<
:Thank you for the update. [[User:Dr.K.|Dr.K.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λogos]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πraxis]]</span></sup></small> 21:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 86:
Hello, I believe that the first part of this template's warning language is far too broad for a template concerning autobiographies. There is a deletion debate going on regarding [[Adeem Hashmi]] where an editor is referencing the language in this template as a justification to argue that an article about an Urdu poet who has been dead for ten years should be considered an autobiography. Surely, other templates concerning [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:NPOV]] should be used in such situations, and an autobiography template should be used only in situations where people have written articles about themselves. I appreciate the opinions of other editors more knowledgeable about such matters than I. Thank you. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
: I'm inclined to agree with you, I think the language used in this template is misleading and needs to be tightened considerably. Would you like to make a suggestion here, on improved wording? [[User:Pol430|<
:: Thank you, Pol430. I recommend deleting the first two sentences. The remaining text should then be fine. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::: I have condensed and simplified the template considerably in an attempt to bring its message back on track. [[User:Pol430|<
:::: Well done, Pol430. Thank you. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 109:
{{od|:}}
Above is a copy and paste from the template talk page, which had not been redirected. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] and I are currently working on some improvements to this template. [[User:Pol430|<
: Following the discussion [[User_talk:Pol430#user_warning|here]] Kudpung and I have arrived at the following version:
Line 122:
<nowiki>{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]]}}} Hi {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]]. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|[[:{{{1}}}]]}} a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the [[WP:NPP|suggested tasks for patrollers]] and review the [[WP:CSD#Criteria|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Particularly, the section covering [[WP:CSD#Non-criteria|non-criteria]]. Such pages are best tagged with [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion]], [[WP:PRODBLP|proposed deletion for biographies of living persons]], or sent to the appropriate [[WP:Deletion discussions|deletion discussion]].<noinclude></nowiki>
Any coding experts out there that can check to see if we have broken anything? (Please see [[User_talk:Pol430#user_warning|this discussion]] for what happened to the extra params) [[User:Pol430|<
:Auotosign? [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 133:
:{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]]}}} Hi {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]]. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|[[:{{{1}}}]]}} a page that you tagged for speedy deletion,{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if: {{{2|}}} | under criterion [[WP:CSD#{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] | {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{nocriterion|no}}}|yes|without specifying a [[WP:CSD|criterion for speedy deletion]]}}}} because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#if: {{{3|}}} | {{{3}}} |}} Please take a moment to look at the [[WP:NPP|suggested tasks for patrollers]] and review the [[WP:CSD#Criteria|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Particularly, the section covering [[WP:CSD#Non-criteria|non-criteria]]. Such pages are best tagged with [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion]], [[WP:PRODBLP|proposed deletion for biographies of living persons]], or sent to the appropriate [[WP:Deletion discussions|deletion discussion]].<noinclude>
@Kudpung - when you say autosign, do you mean via twinkle? If so, I think this a coded into twinkle rather than the template. [[User:Pol430|<
New code works fine, tested [[User talk:Pol430/Sandbox|'''here''']] manually with all params, and with twinkle using all supported params. Changes made [[User:Pol430|<
Line 143:
There are a few kinds of messages, such as conflict of interest warnings, that are rarely used alone. For example, I often have to deliver such a warning after tagging a page for speedy deletion, which, if done using TW, also ensures that the user receives a welcome message. Thus, the "welcome" part of {{tl|uw-coi}} is often redundant. I think such templates should have a <code>welcome=no</code> option, or alternatively, we could create a second class of templates without such messages. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</FONT> 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</FONT> 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
: If you are referring to the first line of [[Template:uw-coi]] 'Welcome to Wikipedia.' Then I agree that could be replaced with 'Hello' or 'Hello <nowiki>{{BASEPAGENAME}}</nowiki>. In terms of Twinkle posting welcome messages at the same time as other warnings, that would need to be discussed at [[WT:TWINKLE|Twinkle talk]]. [[User:Pol430|<
::I've edited it as you suggested — that seems easier than messing about with Twinkle. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</FONT> 05:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Thanks, I've just subst-ed the basepagename param [[User:Pol430|<
== "Thank you" ==
To my eyes, the "Thank you" that tails many of the user warnings is borderline passive-aggressive. For one, it assumes that the user agrees with the message and will heed it (presumably what they're being thanked for.) For another, it heightens the impression that the user is being bureaucratically "processed" via a one-way communication. I would replace many or all uses of this with something that encourages interaction: for example, I usually end custom notifications with "Let me know if you have any questions, <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ". [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</FONT> 05:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
: The 'Thank You' is an optional param (in most templates) and can be replaced with additional text (see template docs). I suppose Thank You was chosen because it seemed to be the most standardised ending for standardised templates. If you issue the template via Twinkle the 'Thank You' param is still apparent even if you add additional text (see [[User talk:Pol430/Sandbox|here]]). I don't think it practical to change the ending of every uw-* template. Perhaps the good people at Twinkle can come up with a solution for, optionally, not including the 'Thank You' param when issuing a template via Twinkle. [[User:Pol430|<
::Hmm, why wouldn't it be practical? If there are no objections, I'd like to start working on this. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</FONT> 10:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Well, are you proposing to do it for just single issue notices? Or all uw-* templates? I don't think there are many single issue warnings that end with thank you (I haven't checked). The multi level templates generally end in thank you for level 1 and level 2, whilst level 3 and 4 just end... I have no objections to "Let me know if you have any questions, <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" replacing "Thank you" on single issue notices. I think single issue warnings should just end with a sig, and the multi templates seem fine as the are (the endings at least). In terms of practicality [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Uw-&namespace=10 this is the complete list of all uw- templates], note there are 3 pages. [[User:Pol430|<
::::The ones I'm looking at are {{tl|uw-username}} and {{tl|uw-coi}}, which I use with some regularity. It may be that "Thank you" is appropriate for some templates, and for many, e.g., 3rd and 4th level warnings, we shouldn't use either. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</FONT> 23:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::<s>It looks like {{tl|Documentation}} would need to be changed too, since it makes reference to "Thank you" as the default text. Actually, that should be removed from the documentation in any case, since it's used on many templates that don't have the "Thank you" option. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</FONT> 05:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)</s>
:::::Actually it was {{tl|Templatesnotice}}, and the problem is that some templates don't make use of its <code>nothankyou=yes</code> parameter. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</FONT> 07:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Yeah, some of the standardised templates are more standardised than others, apparently... Anyhow, I have no objections to the changes you suggest. [[User:Pol430|<
== RFC ==
Users interested in this area should be aware of [[Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Minimize talk page templates]] and may wish to comment there. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
: Thanks for the pointer, I think your comment pretty much hit the nail on the head for me. [[User:Pol430|<
== Multi-warning template ==
Line 171:
:''«Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.»''
I didn't have a block when editing 4 or 5 times on the same article in the same day. [[User:SWFlash|SWF]][[User_talk:SWFlash|lash]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: I'm not sure what question you are asking, or comment you are making? The line you quote above is from the [[WP:3RR|3rr policy]] which features in the {{tl|uw-3rr}} template. You seem to be confusing ''edits'' with ''reversions''. Also that line makes it clear that making more than three reversions ''is almost always grounds for an immediate block'' which is very different to saying ''if you make three reversions you will always be blocked''. By any measure, that line line of text is a feature of Wikipedia policy and was arrived at as a result of consensus. [[User:Pol430|<
== [[Template:Uw-delete1]] ==
What do we do if the edit is not '''recent'''? Also, what do I do if the content has '''not''' been restored (since I was not sure if the deletion was appropriate)? See [[User talk:Clucker McBawk|here]] where I modified the wording manually (without actually changing the template). [[User:-- -- --/Template:Uw-delete1 revised|Here]], I tried to create a modified version of the template. Any suggestions, please? <big>[[User:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[User talk:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]]</big> 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
: It depends how old the edit in question is, and who made it. For example, if an IP editor made the edit, and it is 3 weeks old, it is quite likely that the person now using that IP address is not the same person that made the edit. If you are not sure the removal was appropriate—and don't want to revert the edit because of that—don't warn the user that made it. Generally templates are used to advise users of inappropriate recent changes, if the issue is more complex than that, just write them a normal message, on their talk page. [[User:Pol430|<
== uw-selfrevert ==
Line 182:
:Sounds reasonable to me. I don't really like the use of 'experiment' either, but I'm not sure what would be a good alternative. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <FONT SIZE="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] | [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</FONT> 19:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
::While I personally prefer 'experiment,' maybe we could use 'test' instead? — [[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 12:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
::: 'Reverting' is collective term whilst an 'undo' is a specific action on Wikipedia (see [[Help:Reverting]]). Templates should avoid confusing users who may not know any better; Therefore, I feel we should continue to disambiguate the two actions. [[User:Pol430|<
:::: I frankly don't see how this could cause any confusion at all. I mean "undo" in the sense of what it means in plain English, not in terms of what it means in Wikipedia. (Regardless of Wiki jargon, the word "undo" would be completely accurate here.) In effect, such an edit that would provoke this warning would be the same as an undo (even if not done in the exact same way), and if somebody is new enough to warrant this warning, they won't know the difference, and surely won't become confused when they learn more about how Wikipedia works. [[User:Kansan|Kansan]] ([[User talk:Kansan|talk]]) 01:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
== Question about these templates ==
Line 345:
== {{tl|uw-npa1}} tld ==
Just for info guys, {{tl|uw-npa1}} has been put up for [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_23#Template:Uw-npa1|deletion]]. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
== [[Template:uw-ew]] ==
Line 406:
::Without quoting it, this particular edit referred to the personal life of this BLP's subject & was placed within the article. Didn't seem to be quite covered by any of the available notice templates. A parameter/space could be added to any possible template with room for additional text (like your reason ''why''), but I am definitely not any kind of an expert on templates/transclusion/coding. That's why I posted my vague idea here. If folks feel it isnt needed, then that's that. I was just wondering if something like this ''might'' be useful. Cheers, [[User:Shearonink|Shearonink]] ([[User talk:Shearonink|talk]]) 17:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
:::The cited example is perfectly covered by uw-unsourced which provides: ''Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.''
:::[[WP:TONE]] redirects to [[Wikipedia:Writing better articles]]. As a linguist, I interpret 'tone' in our context to be the ''level of language'' used. Traditionally, encyclopedias are written in a tight, formal style without being overly intellectual or academic and hard for readers to understand. Informal language (magazine and/or spoken stye), such as the use of contractions, referring to bio subjects by their first names, and addressing the reader as 'you' are certainly inappropriate, as is of course 'teen-talk' and the language used by rappers and garage bands and their fans. Not everyone is able to communicate in a formal tone, so there is certainly a need for some kind of uw template, but as a single issue notice. Tone is something regular users here or the GOCE can easily clean up, and warnings for tone should not be served up to reprehend. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 428 ⟶ 427:
It might also make the user feel better to be in the community and more at home, which is always pretty necessary.
It's just an idea and I'm open to criticism of it, however I would certainly appreciate your opinions in this matter. Thanks vm - '''[[User:Thecheesykid|<
'''Edit''':
:: [[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Welcome to Wikipedia. The previous warning template concerning this edit [Edit] to the article [Article] was added here in error, and the warning has now been rescinded. Thank you for your contribution.
'''[[User:Thecheesykid|<
:This kind of seems like a solution looking for a problem. Whenever I've applied a warning template in error, I've simply removed the erroneously-applied template and apologized in the edit summary, and that was the end of it. No need for a templated public apology. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 07:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:: I've done the same, but we're thinking of speed, we could always write down a message saying that they've vandalized, but we add a template because it's faster. Also, as I've said, it can break some comment paths, such as if the user writes underneath the warning and you remove it, the path of conversation is now broken. '''[[User:Thecheesykid|<
:::In that case, you can strike through the warning and apologize below. Besides, do you ''really'' screw this up enough to need a template? Again, a quick "whoops, didn't mean to do that" seems to take less time than a template. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 08:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:::: Hmmm fair enough, it ''was'' just an idea... '''[[User:Thecheesykid|<
:::::I agree. It doesn't (or shouldn't) happen very often, and a personal note if far nicer than template. You can could use a pre written text that you can store in your user sub pages. It would always be your own personal message. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 03:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 502 ⟶ 501:
:::No, I have no itention of changing CSD policy - I just want to be bold and change this well intended but ridiculous wall of text . I need to know is where it is. Are you able to answer that question, as template experts? Thanks.[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 06:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:::: I Agree that this is the best venue for discussing this change and support Kudpung's slimmed down version. The original is far too unwieldy. [[User:Pol430|<
:::::Finally located it. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Line 697 ⟶ 696:
:''" For [[WP:C|legal reasons]], we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. However you may use external websites or publications as a [[WP:RS|source]] for your information."''
:Let me know, if it's too succinct? Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::Still not explicit enough. I ''am'' seeing copyvio in user sandboxes, and especially lately from a pool of student-editors who are generally having problems (albeit often well-intentioned) with the copyvio policy in general. The same editors are also seemingly prone to image copyvios, which are harder for NPP to detect. In a previous semester, I saw several students create a hopeless copyvio (including images and text) in sandbox and then gradually change it to make article content or to use it as an online pile of notecards while writing. But we can't tolerate copyvio even as a work-in-progress and this edit pattern also could make the result tainted as a derived-from-copyvio (but at least easy to detect!). What finally brought me here was after talking to some [[WP:IEP]] ambassadors about the situation...again even when hitting students over the head with the template when reverting their article edits, they just switch over to the same problematic edits in sandbox-space. Just working the phrase "anywhere on Wikipedia" into the warning would be a big improvement IMO. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 16:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
:::OK no problems, and thanks for clearing that up. I'm off out for a while if someone else doesn't give a proposal I'll take into account the explicit everywhere, and tweak it later on. Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::One of the issues on the IEP is that contributors are now apparently using locally published textbooks as their sources, possibly in the knowledge that we have no means of checking the hard copy. A further problem is that all across Asia there is culturally very little concern for plagiarism. Even the textbook authors do it, and their publishers are only concerned with the book sales. One only needs to go into any of the many bookshops on Connaught Place and browse through a few volumes on the same subject. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 08:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
{{unindent}}OK how does this fit your needs? Please feel free to tweak it and let me know. Regards <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
Line 716 ⟶ 715:
::Yes, I have seen plenty of cases here in Asia where content has been ripped from Wikipedia. especially in text books, and in graduate and post graduate theses. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
:Not sure it's necessary to differentiate between registered and IP. Deliberately mentioning pasted and typed takes it more towards text when the same applies to images, and there's no needs to list the sources where it may have come from in my opinion. The basis of the template should keep to the basic fault, and we use the parsered extra comments to give detail to the template if required. Sorry to sound so negative. <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::My concern is that the phraseology adequately address the needs of users for wh m English is a second language, and in whose culture there is little regard for the importance of respecting copyright. We have very recent instances where users from the IEP have been blocked and simply continued under an IP address. I had to block an entire faculty at one stage. FWIW I have worked in education in India. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Line 724 ⟶ 723:
:::<nowiki>{{subst:uw-copyright|User talk:Naughty Student|Please be aware that this warning also applies to copying your homework into your userspace.}} ~~~~</nowiki>
:::Honestly I'm not being obtuse, it's just I would prefer to see templated warning not being directed to specific cases as that was the reason the optional statement was parsered into the warnings. Though I do agree with DMacks original point and think we should put my version or a slightly reworded version in place to cover that, then we look at the student issues, let me know what you think? Cheers <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::I stated my reasons above. Unless you have experience in patrolling hundreds of new pages, you may not be aware of the situation. However, as someone who has worked in various non-English countries you may have some understanding that the language must be clear, and at a level that non-English speakers understand. It also helps io achieve a mean language level for comprehension in regions of very different cultural perception. . These are not children we're talking about, they are university students and their teachers. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 13:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::All I can do is apologies as you have misinterpreted my intention and level of knowledge of the subject. All I was suggesting was to try and not to use the templates main text for specific issues and keep the general text generic. Please make the change you see fit. Regards <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
::::::No worries. I won't be deciding what get used anyway. It's always been difficult to get user-centric templates drafted. By the time most editors start drafting prose for warning messages, they've forgotten what it was like to be a newbie ;) [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 15:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::That's just because Wikipedia has changed, [[User_talk:Khukri#Template_testing|5 years ago yesterday]] about 10 of us managed to write some 200 odd templates in under a month, the chance of doing that these days would be damned near [[WP:BIKESHED|impossible]]. All the best <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<
{{unindent}}Wikipedia has indeed changed, but I don't think it's as dire as all that :)
Line 820 ⟶ 819:
:I think there's a lot we can take from {{tlx|uw-ew}}.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 03:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::I personally wouldn't mind merging the two templates; I have never actually used the 3RR template and never reference it ever when warning a user or blocking a user for edit warring; but I do recognize that many people do use the template and reference the policy page; I just feel that since we do have the template, the text should more accurately reflect the policy page it references. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#000099;">Jayron</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009900;">32</span>]]''''' 03:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I've had to use both templates on different occasions. Anyway, the proposed changes look good, but why remove "almost always"? ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><
::::Language which indicates a programmatic response to behavior (action A results in consequence B) gives the false impression that blocks are programmed "punishments" metted out for specific "offenses", and implies that humans are not necessary to read and interpret a situation and make good judgements about when to issue a block and when not to. While, absent any of the standard exceptions, 3RR usually results in a short block, there are too many variables involved to say "always" or "almost always" (in such a case, the qualifier "almost" is a useless word; most people read that as "always"). I am uncomfortable giving the impression that blocks are punishments, and the current wording gives an impression that 3RR is some "crime" for which a block is a semi-automatic "punishment", rather than giving the correct description, which is 3RR is an indication of potential disruption to the proper working of the encyclopedia, which an administrator may be asked to investigate to see if a block is an appropriate response to stop said disruption to return the encyclopedia to good working order. That many, or even most, 3RR events result in blocks is for me irrelevent in a ''warning''. Ideally, if someone has been warned, they should not be then blocked instantly if they have not committed a further violation (i.e. all users should be given the chance to heed a warning). The 3RR text, as it reads now, implies that the warning is a precursor to the coming block, and that such an event is inevitable. We should, instead, always give the warned user a chance to self-correct, and by changing the wording from the stern "almost always grounds for an immediate block" to "may result in a block", the less-stern wording gives the warned user the correct impression, which is that the block is not necessarily forthcoming if the user instead changes their behavior. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#000099;">Jayron</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009900;">32</span>]]''''' 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Well said! Blocking exists to prevent further disruption. We're not out to "get" someone or "get rid of" someone with blocking. The revised template doesn't give the impression that anyone's hands are tied regarding a specific course of action, and likewise, it indicates that there is discretion in the process. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 02:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Line 926 ⟶ 925:
When a user inserted ''The Creator of the Earth made the earth'' into [[History of the Earth]], none of the existing templates seemed to convey what I wanted to say, so I winged it with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:107.25.12.151&oldid=466092849 this message]. Should we add a series of templates that would be appropriate for responding to this kind of edit? [[User:Peter Chastain|Peter Chastain]] ([[User talk:Peter Chastain|talk]]) 02:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
: Why not? :) I'm not in favor of creating unneeded templates, but I think you have identified a genuine gap in the current collection. [[User:Pol430|<
::{{tl|Uw-npov1}} would seem to be appropriate. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
::I'm inclined to agree with Zaphod: a simple NPOV warning is all that's needed here. --[[User:Orangemike|<
== [[Template:Uw-disruptive4im]] ==
I'm not sure that this template's message is supported by the block policy in relation to disruptive editing. Was there any discussion prior to the creation of this template? I can't see anything obvious in the talk page archives. opinions? Perhaps a candidate for TFD? [[User:Pol430|<
:I think it'll go there immediately. When we're at level 4, there's not much of a difference between disruption and vandalism. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">''' Blanchardb''' </span>-<sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup>- timed 03:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:It's [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 24#Template:Uw-disruptive4im|right here.]] --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">''' Blanchardb''' </span>-<sup><span style="color:#A62428">[[User:Blanchardb|Me]]•[[User Talk:Blanchardb|MyEars]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blanchardb|MyMouth]]</span></sup>- timed 03:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks, although I have removed the links, in the table, to the vandalism templates because the disruption templates were designed to specifically deal with disruptive editing that is not vandalism. By including links to vand4 and vand4im I feel that sends a message: that continued disruptive editing becomes vandalism automatically. Which, according to [[WP:DDE]], it does not. [[User:Pol430|<
== IMDB ==
Line 957 ⟶ 956:
Edited [[User:SmallCheez|SmallCheez]] ([[User talk:SmallCheez|talk]]) 05:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
: It sounds like you may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] or [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]]. Where content disputes are concerned it is often best to hand-type a message to the user in question. Templates can often make these sorts of situations worst. [[User:Pol430|<
*Ah, thank you very much. I knew that templates involved code, and I'm terrible at code (even copying and pasting; sadly I manage to get something wrong), and just typed out messages. Glad to know I did the right thing even though I didn't know what it was. Anyways, it hasn't happened since the last revert, and hopefully, it won't happen again until the content can be confirmed (or denied). Same IP= Dispute resolution; different IP= "Please don't do that" (and then Dispute Resolution if repeated).
[[User:SmallCheez|SmallCheez]] ([[User talk:SmallCheez|talk]]) 23:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Line 975 ⟶ 974:
:::::Sorry. I didn't notice that the wording is merely encouraging IPs and users to be bold. [[User:Bulldog73|Bulldog73]] [[User talk:Bulldog73|<sup>talk</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Bulldog73|<small>da contribs</small>]] [[Special:Random|<sub>go rando</sub>]] 07:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
{{od|:::::}} In interest of consensus building: I don't see that the phrase "Your test worked" is bitey or patronising. In the case of an apparent test edit it seems entirely appropriate to highlight it as such. [[User:Pol430|<
:I support the wording ''"You have edited a page on Wikipedia"'' as being the most informative, least presumptuous, least jargon-y, and least open to misinterpretation. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <font size="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] | [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</font></span> 10:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
:: That would render the current template: "You have edited a page on Wikipedia, and it has been reverted or removed."—something of a mixed signal? Additionally, that would remove any specific reference to test editing from the template. You could, of course, reword the template to accommodate the new phrase, although it is likely that this would lengthen template, making it less concise. TBH I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-test1&oldid=462130799 this revision] is perfectly acceptable; but fail to see that the original text was in any way bitey. [[User:Pol430|<
:::The rest of the template would read something like "...for one reason or another, your edit didn't appear to improve the page, and was reverted or removed. If you disagree, or have a question, feel free to ask on my talk page. If you'd like to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia, please see our [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]]. To make experimental edits, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thanks."
:::I personally don't see the value in making the template more concise. For many new editors, this will be their first interaction with another Wikipedian; should we not go out of our way to try to make it a good one? <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <font size="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] | [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</font></span> 19:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
::::If the wording "your test worked" doesn't apply, then uw-test1 doesn't apply, and another template would probably be better instead. I don't see it as being too concise, because only a very specific type of edit would, in my opinion, warrant this template. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: That's more or less what I was trying to say—perhaps badly... [[User:Pol430|<
:::::For the record, I don't think this template is BITEy; the problem is that "test" is interpretive and jargony. Calling the template "test" is fine — but ''telling'' users that their edit was a "test" is not helpful, in my opinion. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <font size="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] | [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</font></span> 20:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::I don't necessarily disagree, if it was a test edit, then they know it was. How about something like this?
Line 989 ⟶ 988:
::::::I'm sure that exact wording would be objected to by someone, but it was my attempt at saying "your test worked" without actually saying it. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, this would be a good replacement. I would just change "further" to "with editing" to avoid implying that the first edit was an experiment. I like that your version explicitly says the edit was successful, since this is sometimes a point of confusion for new users who have their edits reverted. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <font size="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] | [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</font></span> 20:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Yep, looks like a suitable replacement to me [[User:Pol430|<
{{od}}I went ahead and changed [[template:uw-test1|uw-test1]] and tested it to make sure the formatting was correct. Everything looks correct, but additional eyes on it would be appreciated. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 20:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APol430%2FSandbox&action=historysubmit&diff=468084559&oldid=418012268 seems to work fine] I have tidied up the white space slightly. We should probably look at Huggle version of this template too. [[User:Pol430|<
:: I've updated the Huggle version of this template also [[User:Pol430|<
:::The new wording assumes the test edit was an article. I'm going to have to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emilgjoka&diff=469539466&oldid=469539296 fix up] the message half the time I use it. -- [[User:John of Reading|John of Reading]] ([[User talk:John of Reading|talk]]) 17:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,009 ⟶ 1,008:
:For info: Another template with an optional message to advise users to leave an edit summary is {{Tl|PrevBtn}} [[User:Fred_Gandt|'''<span style="font-family:arial;color:#055;font-size:16px;">f<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">red</i>g<i style="color:#0dd;font-size:10px;">andt</i></span>''']] 11:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:: The change suggested by [[User:Peter Chastain]] seems fairly uncontroversial; I was about to go ahead and make the changes, but I'm having difficulty incorporating the suggested sentence around the existing parser functions. Can anyone more savvy with parser functions find a work around? [[User:Pol430|<
:::Figured it out, and fixed. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
== Change to Template:Uw-copyright ==
Line 1,015 ⟶ 1,014:
I reverted the recent change to this template, because a short clear text had been replaced with an essay-ish explanation of copyright concerns that duplicates content of [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], which is sufficiently linked in the original message. "send the pertinent authorization notice from the address associated with the site manager" and "our policy regarding copyright is non-negotiable" does not belong in a notification. "If it's not wrong, don't fix it" applies here in my opinion. [[User:Hekerui|Hekerui]] ([[User talk:Hekerui|talk]]) 21:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
:Quite right and well spotted [[User:Pol430|<
== Warning for inserting personal information ==
Line 1,022 ⟶ 1,021:
I was hoping there would be a warning template such as "''Please do not add personal information about unencyclopedic people or groups to articles...''" but I don't seem to be able to find one here on en.wiki. (As a reference, I was looking for something along the lines of [[:it:Template:Date personali|this one on it.wiki]]). Thanks, --[[User:Mark91|<span style="color:blue">Mark91</span>]]''<small>[[User talk: Mark91|<span style="color:black;">it's my world</span>]]</small>'' 14:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:I would use either {{tl|uw-unsourced2}} or {{tl|uw-error2}} personally. [[User:Pol430|<
== uw-coi wording ==
Line 1,044 ⟶ 1,043:
== Uw-sandbox ==
I just happened across the {{tl|uw-sandbox1}} template message series. They are at the moment broken in various ways, but I don't think they are useful in the first place. Opinions?<br />[[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#832">Amalthea</span>]] 18:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
:They do seem to be overshadowed by other uw templates. However, I was comparing uw-sandbox2 to uw-vand2, which does say "If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." Perhaps that should be clarified? It would be confusing to get a uw-vand2 template telling you go to to the sandbox to make the edits, and then to get a uw-sandbox template for doing exactly what uw-vand2 suggested. I know [[WP:Sandbox]] has the message saying "Please do not place copyrighted, offensive, or libelous content in the sandboxes." but it [[WP:AGF|may be overlooked]], they may see "Welcome to the sandbox, here's how to edit, blah blah blah" and think "I know how to click Edit, so I don't have to read all this. *skip*" and miss the part about offensive/libelous content. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
== Additional parameter for user warning templates ==
Line 1,052 ⟶ 1,051:
Is there a user talk page template for users who engage in retaliatory reversion? In other words, if user A makes inappropriate edits that get reverted by user B, user A retaliates by reverting some of user B's good edits. If there isn't, should there be a template for this? [[User:Mwalimu59|mwalimu59]] ([[User talk:Mwalimu59|talk]]) 16:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
:I'd say that's just plain disruptive editing. If we created a separate template for every kind of disruptive editing, it would just add to the clutter. Use a generic template, and state in your edit summary what you feel the problem is (mindful of [[:WP:AGF]] and [[:WP:NPA]], of course). --[[User:Orangemike|<
== New user template ==
I have created a template {{Tl|W-screen-static}} to serve the same purpose as {{Tl|W-screen}}, but without the blinking logo. I would like to add it to [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace]]. [[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]] ([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]]) 15:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
:{{done}} [[User:Pol430|<
== {{tl|Uw-bizlist}} needs update! ==
Line 1,118 ⟶ 1,117:
:BTW, if you want to hear from a number of editors, you might use {{tlx|rfc|proj}} instead of {{tlx|help me}}. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>[[User:DoriSmith|Dori]] ☾[[User talk:DoriSmith|Talk]] ⁘ [[Special:Contributions/DoriSmith|Contribs]]☽</span> 02:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:: Reasonable statement, however, the template does mention content to cover all of what you specified. The objective of adding references as a mention is because it appears to be the third most common target of removals, therefore, it should be stated as an example. '''By the way, the pages I have created for the sandbox should be moved into the Template: space.''' I could not do so due to technical restrictions. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/75.53.218.81|75.53.218.81]] ([[User talk:75.53.218.81|talk]]) 18:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:::We could just say "Please do not remove ''anything'' from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason". Seems like a valid statement. And it covers... anything. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#008;">Equazcion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small></font>''' 07:45, 30 Apr 2012 (UTC)
::::Reasonable. We could refer to "content", and perhaps that will be all. Thanks. <small>(On another computer)</small> [[Special:Contributions/69.155.136.134|69.155.136.134]] ([[User talk:69.155.136.134|talk]]) 22:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't believe it would be incredibly reasonable to say "Please do not remove ''anything'' from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason". Edit summaries are encouraged; however, they are not required. The only time that a reason is "required" (not by a rule but by de facto editing standards) is when a removal of information is contentious. Vandalism reversions don't require a reason.<samp> </samp>[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']] [[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Vesey|<small>Review me!</small>]] 06:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,126 ⟶ 1,125:
I've just created a mock-up of a user warning template for [[WP:PARAPHRASE|close paraphrasing]] at [[User:Mr. Stradivarius/Uw-paraphrase]]. Do people think this is a good idea? Would it be suitable to move it over to template space? Let me know what you think. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♫]]</sup></b> 14:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
: The first paragraph doesn't flow well, so far as it concerns "copyrighted text". Otherwise, that looks good, and I don't see a reason not to make it a proper UW. [[User:AGK|<
:: I had a go at updating it, and I've moved it to {{tl|uw-paraphrase}}. It could probably still use some tweaking or rewriting, so if anyone wants to edit it, go right ahead. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♫]]</sup></b> 13:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,205 ⟶ 1,204:
{{od|10}} That sounds good to me. We definitely need to convey the imminence of a possible block somehow. If we can strike a balance between that and giving good and friendly advice on what to actually do in an edit war, then I'll be happy. I think we can safely bold the "'''very likely to result in a block'''" part as well. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 16:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't wan't to scare them by threatening a block '''in bold'''. Also, I don't think that anyone doesn't care about a block and even if they don't care, they will be blocked just like any editor who violates the 3RR, and the block will stop them from edit-warring for a period of time (however long the Admin sets the block for). [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 22:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} I think the idea of [[:Template:uw-ewsoft]] is a good one, but it's too long (TL;DR). Cut it down to less than half that size. Templates need to kept short and sweet. I support the idea of a softer version that can be classed as single issue notice. Keep the stronger version, ([[:template:uw-ew]]) for [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] situations, as a single issue warning. [[:template:uw-3rr]] could be redirected as no longer needed. [[User:Pol430|<
:: I've condensed that warning down in my sandbox, see [[User:Pol430/Sandbox6]]. [[User:Pol430|<
:::I think we've done a good job with the new warning, so when do you guys want to publish it. Also, can we make it available on [[Wikipedia:Twinkle|Twinkle]]? Thanks! [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 00:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I think the wording in your sandbox is still a bit much, it feels like it has too much of a accusatory tone. I think the current version at [[:Template:uw-ewsoft]] isn't too long, because it contains enough information that new user would need to know in an edit warring situation. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 16:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Ok, I've given [[:Template:uw-ewsoft]] a little copy edit and resolved the non-section redirects. I support its use and integration to Twinkle. [[User:Pol430|<
{{od|5}} I see that the part about finding consensus was removed. I think we need to say ''something'' about consensus in the warning, though - if we want this warning to really be effective in stopping new users from edit warring, we need to show them what the alternative is. Is there support for adding a shorter sentence that mentions consensus to the end of the first paragraph? How about this: "Instead of edit warring, please try and find a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] on the [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]]." Let me know what you think. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|have a chat]])</sup> 15:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:That looks good, I think it's vital that we mention consensus. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,216 ⟶ 1,215:
===Three edit warring templates===
We've got three basic templates for edit warring now, and I wanted to see if maybe we should redirect uw-3RR into uw-ew, since the uw-3RR template seems somewhat redundant? - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
:Yes I think that's a good idea, although the 3rr template is used by twinkle, so it would be a good idea to get one of the twinkle devs to remove that warning from the drop down list and replace it with ew-soft (in the single issue notices section rather than the warnings section). [[User:Pol430|<
Before I ask for that to happen, does anyone object to it? - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 00:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:No objections. [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 14:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
::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|<
*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|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 16:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
::::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|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 17:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
*::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|<
:::::{{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|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 16:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::: 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|<
{{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|<
::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|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
:::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)
::::::I have re-added uw-3rr to [[WP:UTM]] and single notice links. I'll see if the Twinkle devs will put it back into the drop down menu. [[User:Pol430|<
:::::I think that we should be able to choose which of the 3 templates we would like to use for that particular situation. [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
{{unindent}} Hey guys! I was trying to warn someone for edit warring and then I saw our warning as one of the options on Twinkle and used it. Great job! [[User:Electriccatfish2|Electriccatfish2]] ([[User talk:Electriccatfish2|talk]]) 23:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,244 ⟶ 1,243:
This template is adding an extra space before a signature when using Twinkle so that it signs like this:
[[User:Saedon|<font color="#000000">S<strong>Æ</strong>don</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Saedon|talk]]</sup
I took a look at the code but I'm not sure how to fix this. [[User:Saedon|<font color="#000000">S<strong>Æ</strong>don</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Saedon|talk]]</sup
:First could specify which template you mean. And secondly isn't possible, that the extra space is added by Twinkle? [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust, B.Ed.]] [[User talk:Armbrust|<sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Armbrust|<sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0</sub>]] 12:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
::Based on the contribs preceding opening this thread, I believe Saedon was referring to [[:Template:uw-ewsoft]]. I tried it and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SudoGhost/Sandboxes/PrimarySandbox&oldid=498820896 it did the same for me]. I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-ewsoft&diff=498821411&oldid=498576533 tightened up the spacing] in the template [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SudoGhost/Sandboxes/PrimarySandbox&oldid=498821468 and it seemed to fix the issue]. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 12:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes exactly. Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't on the talk page of that template. Thanks for fixing :) [[User:Saedon|<font color="#000000">S<strong>Æ</strong>don</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Saedon|talk]]</sup
== Proposing changes to the most common level 1 warnings ==
Line 1,404 ⟶ 1,403:
::Yes, particularly if the template included wording about the request failing to be brief. I don't know what the usage numbers might be but creating one would largely be a product of using the wheel, not inventing, it right? What's more, editors requesting a RfC for the first time look to [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All]] as an example, perhaps more so than the instructions on how to word a request, and editors are coming to RfC more often than not due to deadlock or after intense discussion, and sometimes that verbiage is carried over into the requests. Anything that can help get the message across would be appreciated. [[User:Zepppep|Zepppep]] ([[User talk:Zepppep|talk]]) 05:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
::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><
:::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|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 05:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
::::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)
Line 1,468 ⟶ 1,467:
I wanted to let you know that [[Special:Contributions/{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|your recent contribution]]{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}| to [[:{{{1}}}]]}} has been reverted because...
:::: Note that both wordings use the first person voice (Hello, I'm <includeonly>[[User:{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:REVISIONUSER}}|{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:REVISIONUSER}}]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]]</noinclude>. I wanted to let you know...)
:::: <big>[[User:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[User talk:-- -- --|'''--''']] [[Special:Contributions/-- -- --|'''--'''
{{od}} The reason that's not quite enough is that new or anonymous editors don't all understand the editing process, and that being reverted means that either a person or individual bot reverted them. {{tl|uw-vandalism0}} is in place and being optimized to handle the exception that you warn someone you didn't revert, and it's probably a good idea that we make the wording you're suggestion an option in Twinkle (like checking a box that says, "I didn't revert this person"). But it's really important that, in the case where you do revert someone and warn them (like through Huggle), you make it clear that it was you who did it. This educates new people about how our editorial process works. The data we collected via the [[WP:UWTEST|testing project]] showed that when we tell new/anonymous people that a real human being saw their edit and chose to revert it, not some mysterious force that "has" reverted them, that both is less insulting to good faith contributors ''and'' more discouraging to vandals. It shows people that there is a community here, and that we're paying close attention. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 23:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,529 ⟶ 1,528:
== Template:uw-attempt ==
Hello, is there an kind alternate template to {{tl|uw-attempt}}? I would prefer to use a template that kindly warns first time offenders instead of giving a level 4im. I have created an example template in my [[User:Riley Huntley/sandbox|sandbox]]. <span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; font-weight: bold; cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, [[User:Riley Huntley|<font color="#00B74A">Riley Huntley
== Bot for Categories ==
Line 1,560 ⟶ 1,559:
Do we have a warning template to use when an editor removes a properly placed "citation needed" tag? I thought there was one, but am not seeing it, Thanks <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 18:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
:I think Twinkle has one. [[User:Mlpearc|<
:: Thanks - I don't use Twinkle, but I may have seen the warning on someone's talkpage. If anyone has a pointer to such a post, I'd like to have it, as it does come up from time to time. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 19:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,605 ⟶ 1,604:
:::::::::We should get it added then. (I'd be happy to make that request.) <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::I think [[WP:OWN|you need to step back]] and stop trying to reject anything that disagrees with your pet project. Your changes have been met with no consensus, especially when the RfC's closing admin specifically stated that further tweaks are needed. This is one such tweak. Don't like it? Explain why and establish a consensus for your preferred changes, don't refer to an RfC that doesn't support what you're saying as if that has some weight. Do not claim that removing the name as the first wikilink somehow turns the template into this "they won't know that they were reverted by an individual rather than automatically" scenario, that is a false dichotomy. Like articles, templates need to be concise and sum up the point of the template in the first sentence and then expand upon it later, since many editors don't read the entirety of them. Therefore "Hi, I'm SudoGhost." is a ''horrible'' and pointless beginning to a template. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 13:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I know this is anecdotal evidence only, but I use level 0 (which was amended somewhat during the prior discussion), or go straight to a level 2. I think I've templated with a level 1 perhaps three times. The level 0 invites queries or comments either on their talk page or mine.. The level 1 invites questions or responses on my talk page. Absolutely ''no one'' has bitten and responded to ''any'' of my cautions ''in any way.'' I now have so many user talk pages on my watchlist, just in case someone will reply either ___location, that sometime soon I'm going to have to weed out the earlier ones. Especially since it was stated somewhere profound that warnings are considered to become stale after two weeks anyway. I'm sitting in a small corner of Wikipedia, but anecdotally I can't tell that I've reached out to inspire or prod any of the users to become good editors by any of my communications...even with my personally composed messages. They mostly end up with a sanction or just disappear. I have a two IPs who foursquare ignore me and continue merrily on with their contrary ways. <b>[[User:Fylbecatulous|<
::::::::I'm in a similar boat; I don't use the level one templates ever since they were changed and from speaking with other editors, I'm far from the only one that just avoids these new templates altogether. When the closing RfC comment says that "tweaks are needed" is ''the consensus'', it doesn't make sense to object to everything single change while referring to the RfC as reason to reject any change. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 14:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::The idea you're positing that revisions weren't made to tweak is untrue. As for the proposal about removing the statement of who reverted an editor and linking to the username: it's hardly a tweak. It's an essential difference in tone (active, first person vs. passive voice). As for the use of level 0 or 2 warnings as an alternative... I heard much the same from a handful of other patrollers. But when we looked at the project-wide data, it seems with [[:m:Template A/B testing/Post mortem|use of level one warnings vs. level two]], the proportions stayed much the same. (You can also see an overall increase in the use of TW and decrease in HG). <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 22:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,611 ⟶ 1,610:
:::::::::::Now you're just getting personal in your attacks. Please stick to discussing content. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::Everytime someone ''tries'' to discuss the content, you attempt to shoot it down citing an RfC that does not reflect what you're saying. Please stop this. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 00:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Steven, I too am mystified by your response above. {{xt|The proportions of ''what'' stayed the same}}? Not that it matters, really. What I am interested in discerning is: now that we as patrollers are ''in real time'' using these revised templates, do you have any evidence that the "difference in tone" is teaching newbies or contraries to become good editors and thusly retain them? Not during the study, but now? Because as I posted above, I haven't even had one editor reach out and touch me with any kind of response. I have them all watched, and I don't see them growing into blooming flowers who wish to make amends and edit well. They are all fading away, or getting further sanctions. I think the new template messages are ''weaker'' in tone to the point that when I use anything below a 2, all my cautionees yawn at me and say "that's nice". <b>[[User:Fylbecatulous|<
{{od}} The proportions of level one templates used compared to level two warnings. The point was that patrollers overall are not abandoning the level one templates. They work, even if that personally has not been your experience. <font style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 00:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 1,622 ⟶ 1,621:
:::::I'm not sure what this is all about but I'm beginning to get slightly irritated by constantly having to manually remove the first person from the L1 vandalism warning when warning a user whose edit(s) I did not remove. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::BTW: I also find that the friendliness when addressing vandalism is OTT. Delinquency is never done in good faith. There are no objective extrapolations to be made from this kind of AB template testing. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::Even the afore mentioned ''level 0 vandalism'' template (which is good to use for warning editors you did not revert) begins: {{xt|Hello, I'm Fylbecatulous}}. Which I decided to live with since I prefer to use that template although I'm always the one who reverted the article I'm cautioning about. <b>[[User:Fylbecatulous|<
== Ambiguous phrasing uw-unsourced2 ==
Line 1,639 ⟶ 1,638:
== Wnote shortcut ==
Why does [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Wnote]] have a shortcut of {{tl|s/wnote}} (as documented [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Usage and layout#Layout|here]])? {{tl|s}} is a shortcut to {{tl|space}}, which produces non-breaking spaces. This seems weird. — [[User:Hex|<
:Agreed it seems weird. Could it have simply been a typo when the redirect was originally created? (Note that the redirect target includes the string "s/".) And now it's enshrined in documentation and 109 transclusions? – [[User:Wdchk|Wdchk]] ([[User talk:Wdchk|talk]]) 03:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
== Level 1 templates: parameter 2 ==
Line 1,658 ⟶ 1,657:
The [[Template:Uw-attack|Uw-attack]] template reads "Please do not create pages that [[Wikipedia:Attack_page|attack, threaten, or disparage]] their subject…" In many cases an attack article doesn't disparage (etc) ''its subject'', it uses an article (often a very poor one) to disparage something else, for instance I've just deleted as [[WP:CSD#G10]] an article entitled "Biceps tendon rupture" which "explained" how ruptured biceps tendons were common amongst amenians (sic) due to their "weirdness". This obviously wasn't an attack on ruptured biceps tendons; it was an attack article nonetheless. The warning template should be re-worded to make it plain that attack articles of any kind are not allowed, even if they happen not to be a direct attack on the subject of the article. [[User:Tonywalton|Tonywalton]] <sup>[[User talk:Tonywalton|Talk]]</sup> 23:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:A somewhat belated response: How about replace "their subject" with "things" which would be a catch-all phrase. The only difficulty is that [[Wikipedia:Attack page|the policy]] mentions "their subject" specifically. So, there is some potential for policy wonkery with such a change to this template. We could change the wording for the policy as well, but with recent instability on the talk page, concerning the page's very status as a policy, I sense much Wikidrama ahead... [[User:Pol430|<
:Personally I don't see a reason to change it, it seems to be a cosmetic change which doesn't achieve a lot, sorry if that sounded a bit abrupt or rude I didn't intend it that way. Plus I could make an argument that "amenians" were one of the subjects of the article. '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 08:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Line 1,670 ⟶ 1,669:
== [[Template:Uw-tdel1]] ==
Can this template be used for new user who deleted <nowiki>{{Fact}}</nowiki> template? ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jews_in_the_Middle_Ages&diff=prev&oldid=531637792 Case in point].) The reason I'm asking is because neither that template nor similar ones are listed at [[Wikipedia:Maintenance templates]]. (Perhaps someone should add it there?) <big>[[User:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[User talk:-- -- --|'''--''']] [[Special:Contributions/-- -- --|'''--'''
:Yes, it can be used for that purpose. But it's a user warning template, so it shouldn't be listed at [[Wikipedia:Maintenance templates]]. I've restored the cn tag in question; feel free to warn the user if you like. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 21:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::{{done}}. <big>[[User:-- -- --|<span style="color: #6633cc">'''--'''</span>]] [[User talk:-- -- --|'''--''']] [[Special:Contributions/-- -- --|'''--'''
== New test warning to welcome anon users ==
I've seen lots of test edits by anonymous, [[IP Address]], users who have not yet received a welcome message. Also, I noticed that there doesn't seem to be a [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates|wikipedia welcome template]] that is specifically designed to warn anonymous users that testing isn't appropriate (I've searched extensively -- more than just that page). I worked up a template to fill this gap but I don't know if it's ready for primetime. I'm looking for an experienced template editor to help polish and guide this useful tool through the final stages. Please post something on my talk page if you're interested in helping. Thanks! - <b>[[User:Tucoxn|<font face="Verdana" color="#522C1B"><font size="+1"><span class="Unicode">ʈ</span></font>u</font><
::Did you see [[Template:welcome-anon-test]]? [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 21:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
:::I did. That message doesn't use any of the [[help:magic words|magic words]] that identify an anon user's [[IP address]]. Also, why doesn't it simply include the language in <code><nowiki>{{subst:Shared IP advice}}</nowiki></code>? - <b>[[User:Tucoxn|<font face="Verdana" color="#522C1B"><font size="+1"><span class="Unicode">ʈ</span></font>u</font><
::::As I recall it was based on another welcome message that must not have had those features. I have no problem with you improving it. I added the basepagename parameter, edited it a bit for possible shared usage and added the shared IP advice from welcome-anon-vandal. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 04:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, [[User:Jojalozzo|Jojalozzo]]. Adding the basepagename parameter was one of the things I wanted to see. I made a couple small edits. Let me know what you think before I suggest any additional changes. - <b>[[User:Tucoxn|<font face="Verdana" color="#522C1B"><font size="+1"><span class="Unicode">ʈ</span></font>u</font><
::::::This is great. Go for it. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 17:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Jojalozzo|Jojalozzo]], I'm still looking into tweaks that can be made to {{tl|welcome-anon-test}} but I noticed something else on the template that doesn't seem to work and I don't know how to fix it. The "Username" parameter doesn't seem to function. Could you verify that it's broken and and fix it? Thanks! - <b>[[User:Tucoxn|<font face="Verdana" color="#522C1B"><font size="+1"><span class="Unicode">ʈ</span></font>u</font><
::::::Yes, I'll have a look... [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 02:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::If you add your user name as the second parameter it makes the text "my talk page" into a link to your talk page. That is working. Maybe we just need to clarify the docs to say that. I just copied the welcome-anon-vandal docs so I will update them both. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 03:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::I wikified the link to the <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[:Category:Wikipedians looking for help|helpme]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> template. I'm also working on distributing wiki-links to [[Template:welcome-anon-test]] to the other locations where welcome and vandalism/test templates are located.
::::::One thing I don't know how to do: the words "here on ''your'' talk page" should have the same link for the user to edit his talk page. I think this is another opportunity for some of wikipedia's [[help:magic words|magic words]]. Thanks! - <b>[[User:Tucoxn|<font face="Verdana" color="#522C1B"><font size="+1"><span class="Unicode">ʈ</span></font>u</font><
:::::::Such a link would only be useful when the template is used ''somewhere other than on a user's talk page''. I do not think such a use case exists. [[User:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#500000;">Joja</span>]][[User talk:Jojalozzo|<span style="color:#005000;">lozzo</span>]] 19:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
== Template:uw-notenglish ==
Should it direct the warned the user to the corresponding Wikipedia? [[User:FrankDev|FrankDev]] ([[User talk:FrankDev|talk]]) 03:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:That template is used for editors that create foreign language pages, but appear to have enough comprehension of English to translate, or obtain a translation, of the page. Foreign language pages have not necessarily come from an other-language Wiki. If you are looking for a template that steers editors, who do not understand English well enough to contribute here, to their native language version, there are a series of suitable welcome templates [[WP:UTM#Foreign-language contributors|here]]. [[User:Pol430|<
== Username warning, suggested improvement ==
Line 1,827 ⟶ 1,826:
{{tq|
Hello. When you add content to [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] by typing four [[tilde]]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment*. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.<
}}
<
: Hi AlanM1. I'm fine with your proposed wording; I think it's an improvement. IMO the following wording would be even better, because it avoids distracting the reader with the jumping-around necessary to read footnotes: {{tq|
Line 1,846 ⟶ 1,845:
: Cheers, [[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]] ([[User talk:Unforgettableid|talk]]) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::{{Done}} (with a couple other small formatting diffs). <
== Edit request ==
Line 1,920 ⟶ 1,919:
== Addding sig parameter to user warning and notice templates? ==
Would it be possible to add an optional <code><nowiki>|sig=yes</nowiki></code> parameter to the templates listed at {{tl|Single notice links}}, in the manner currently employed for [[:Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Blocks|user block template]]s? '''[[User:It Is Me Here|<
: Additionally, I think that all of the templates that [[WP:TW|Twinkle]] applies to talk pages should automatically sign. [[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]] ([[User talk:Technical 13|talk]]) 22:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Line 2,064 ⟶ 2,063:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-coi&oldid=542053183 Currently], the {{tl|uw-coi}} template includes four points of advice:
* Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
* Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
* Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see [[Wikipedia:Spam]]).
* Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
</div>
}}▼
In the first point, "{{color|#666600|Exercise great caution}}" is vague and can be misinterpreted. The phrase "{{color|#666600|you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with}}" is too wordy.
Line 2,075 ⟶ 2,074:
I propose that it should instead include seven points of advice, adapted from [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]'s [[WP:PSCOI|guide]] with help from [[User:Paine Ellsworth|Mr. Ellsworth]]:
* You need not declare your conflict of interest, but we recommend it.
* Do not edit articles about yourself, your organization, or your competitors. Do not edit related articles. [[Wikipedia:COI#Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest|(Exceptions.)]]
Line 2,083 ⟶ 2,082:
* Have us review your draft.
* Work with us and we'll work with you.
</div>
The proposed text provides advice which is more specific and therefore easier to follow. For example, "{{color|#666600|Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies}}" is a vague reference to [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:COI]]. The line "{{color|green|Your role is to summarize, inform and reference — not to promote, sell, or whitewash}}" is better: it summarizes both policies.
Line 2,125 ⟶ 2,124:
Am I right in thinking that the number of warning templates has greatly increased over the last few months? The current number is overwhelming, and really tiresome to navigate. Many of the templates seem overly specific as well (as examples, do we really need standard messages for 'Incorrectly formatting disambiguation pages', 'Overly hasty tagging of articles for speedy deletion' and 'User page in inappropriate category'? These are all unusual circumstances where a personalised message would be much more more appropriate). At very least this page needs a list of 'frequently used templates' or similar. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 08:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
:It would appear that over the last few months almost no new templates have been added; unless I'm missing somthing? If you feel a template is unnecessary or no longer useful then you can create a new discussion at [[WP:TFD|TfD]] and suggest its deletion. [[User:Pol430|<
== uw-biog set of warnings ==
Line 2,230 ⟶ 2,229:
Please take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. {{{2|Thank you.}}}<includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam1 notices|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}</includeonly><!-- Template:uw-spam1 --><noinclude>
Think this one is better. [[User:DDreth|<
== Uw-cia series and Uw-talkinarticle redundant ==
Line 2,267 ⟶ 2,266:
::Agreed, that's pretty silly. It seems much more likely to [[WP:DNFT|feed them]] than frighten them. You'd be better off using the standard {{tl|uw-vandalism4im}} warning or something similar. --[[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] ([[User talk:Bongwarrior|talk]]) 18:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
:: Yeah – I'm afraid that, while evil and malicious could pass as reasonable inferences from behavior, "malodorous" is just [[WP:NPA]]. No way to know that over the 'net (yet) {{Smiley}} <
:::See [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 22]]. And David, this is the second time in a few days I have seen you do something aimed at "evil," the other being your attempt to ban all usernames that even theoretically contain a reference to Satan. You might want to rethink your approach to such issues. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Line 2,314 ⟶ 2,313:
== {{tl|uw-vandalism1}} ==
{{strikediv|1=
My point is not that it actually ''does'' come off that way, but that if it is phrased this way now and not causing any problems, we might as well introduce another piece of wording that might have the same implication but at least makes it make sense - that is, to say 'I undid one or more [...]'.
Line 2,324:
Actually, on re-reading what I wrote I think 'one [...] such as the one' is actually an ok grammatical structure. I'm not always sure about these things...in any case, however, I think we should possibly provide for the instance of warning after reverting more than one contribution. If 'one or more', which would convey this nicely, is truly unacceptable we should include some sort of parameter. [[User:Cathfolant|Cathfolant]] ([[User talk:Cathfolant|talk]]) 01:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That is, something to the effect of '<nowiki>I undid {{#ifeq:{{{1|one}}}|several|several|one}} of [[Special:Contributions/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}|your recent contributions]]{{#if:{{{2|{{{1|}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{1|one}}}|several|, such as the one you made to [[{{{2}}}]]{{#if:{{{3|}}}| with <span class=plainlinks>[{{{3}}} this edit]</span>}}| that you made to [[{{{1}}}]]{{#if:{{{2|}}}| with <span class=plainlinks>[{{{2}}} this edit]</span>}}}}}} because {{#ifeq:{{{1|one}}}|several|they|it}} didn't appear constructive.</nowiki>'. How does that sound? Half-decent? [[User:Cathfolant|Cathfolant]] ([[User talk:Cathfolant|talk]]) 01:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
▲}}
I have no idea what prompted me to write all that rubbish. The template does in fact say 'one or more'. [[User:Cathfolant|Cathfolant]] ([[User talk:Cathfolant|talk]]) 01:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Line 2,338 ⟶ 2,339:
<div name="Deletion notice" class="boilerplate metadata" id="delete" style="background-color:#fee; margin:1em; padding:0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
[[File:Stop_x_nuvola.svg|75px|right|alt=|link=]] Hello. Due to your recent actions, you have been blocked by an administrator. In other words, blocked means you cannot edit or create pages, or upload images. The reason for this block is shown below:<br />
:''{{{1|[[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]] violation. No specific reason has been provided.}}}''<br />
This block will last for:<br />
:'''''{{{2|No block length provided.}}}''<br />
During this block, you will not be able to edit any page or upload any images on Wikipedia. Once the block is over, you will be able to resume to editing and your normal abilities. Please be careful in the future and review the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]].<br /><br />If you feel this block was unfair or unjust, you may post a message below this one saying why you feel this block was unfair and an administrator will review it.<br /></div>
<noinclude>
Line 2,349 ⟶ 2,350:
'''Only administrators should be using this template.''' This template is for letting blocked users know that they have been blocked, why they have been blocked, and the length of their block.
If you are going to use this template, be sure you fill all fields shown in bold below:<br />
<code><nowiki>{{Subst:BlockNotice|</nowiki>'''Policy violation'''<nowiki>|</nowiki>'''Length of block'''<nowiki>}}~~~~</nowiki></code>
'''EXAMPLE:'''<br />
{{BlockNotice|Vandalism|1 week}}[[User:Administrator|Administrator]] 00:00 January 1, 2011
Line 2,364 ⟶ 2,365:
=== Block Notice ===
<div name="Deletion notice" class="boilerplate metadata" id="delete" style="background-color:#fee; margin:1em; padding:0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
[[File:Stop_x_nuvola.svg|75px|right|alt=|link=]] Hello. Due to your recent actions, you have been blocked by an administrator. In other words, blocked means you cannot edit or create pages, or upload images. The reason for this block is shown below:<br />
:''{{{1|[[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]] violation. No specific reason has been provided.}}}''<br />
This block will last for:<br />
:'''''{{{2|No block length provided.}}}'''''<br />
During this block, you will not be able to edit any page or upload any images on Wikipedia. Once the block is over, you will be able to resume to editing and your normal abilities. Please be careful in the future and review the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]].<br /><br />If you feel this block was unfair or unjust, you may post a message below this one saying why you feel this block was unfair and an administrator will review it.<br /></div>
<noinclude>
Line 2,400 ⟶ 2,401:
:{{stop}} This is your '''only warning'''. If you don't start assuming good faith '''right now, you may be [[WP:BLOCK|blocked from editing]] without further notice.''' [[User:Ginsuloft|Ginsuloft]] ([[User talk:Ginsuloft|talk]]) 00:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Meh, How about this: [[image:stop_hand.svg|35px]] This is your '''only warning'''. The next time you assume bad faith on other users '''right now, it could result in a [[WP:BLOCK|loss of editing privileges]].''' [[User:DDreth|<
{{Reply to|Mr. Stradivarius}} I think it might be worth taking them to [[WP:TfD|TfD]], especially since they don't really provide any information about exactly what the person needs to do differently. Ginsuloft & DDreth I really can't think of a time when it would be appropriate and necessary to give someone a warning about not AGF which doesn't assume good faith. Any and everytime there is an AGF issue it should be explained and discussed since [[WP:AGF]] depends a lot on personal interpretation of comment. '''[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]''' ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 01:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
| |||