Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:00, 29 February 2008

Revision as of 07:01, 2 March 2008

Line 1,026:

:Run it past the guys at [[WP:SPAM]] as well they're best placed to give contrcutive pointers there. Looks good to me, though is there anyway it can be boiler plated with the original, tweaking the wording to remove the article bias, so we have one template for both cases? Cheers ^{[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]} <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 10:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== I think this template is going too far ==

I would like to point out that this template makes no attempt to prove what it's charging. It gives a point of view (that the person violated policy) as if it were a fact. The policy is: you should try to write with neutral point of view. That someone did not have neutral point of view is personal opinion. I think blocking someone for having a point of view is going too far, since you can simply do the rewrite yourself. The main rule of Wikipedia is: "Anybody can edit." People are more important than perfect writing. -- [[User talk:Chuck Marean|Chuck Marean]] 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

:Exactly so! Bill , your editing is greatly appreciated, Any attempts at wikiwarring are not. If you object to discussion quote removal, please refrain from doing so yourself." Mudding in the cause of civility" is still mudding.

:Kind regards the Defender of Good Administration <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.73.172.15|70.73.172.15]] ([[User talk:70.73.172.15|talk]]) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:It seems this is not the only forum that you have brought this issue. To answer it from the UTM/UW perspective simply adding information to Wikipedia that does not have verifiable source (or removing information that is) can and often is challenged as POV. Continuing to do so whilst having been informed of wikipedia's POV policies is why these templates were created. That is to give editors a structured system whereby they can inform other editors that their edits are [[WP:POV|point of view]], maybe also considered to be [[WP:OR|original research]] and needs to have [[WP:VERIFY|verifiable]] sources, if after a number of warnings, these suggestions are not followed then blocks will be issued. Discuss first, achieve concensus and a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] then edit later. This usually removes the need for this type of template. If you want any help or direction don't hesitate to give me a shout. ^{[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]} 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

=== Explain ===

This template should’t claim somebody did something without explanation of why you think the person did what you claim. Stating or implying that someone “violated” Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy without explaining why you think so is libelous. In fact, even with explanation it would be more truthful to say “In my opinion, what you wrote didn’t have a neutral point of view.” This template and it’s usage should have a neutral point of view. [[User talk:Chuck Marean|Chuck Marean]] 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:I have no idea why the above message is on here four times. I only pressed Save Page once.--[[User talk:Chuck Marean|Chuck Marean]] 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

::I removed the other copies of the post for you. [[User:Dreaded Walrus|Dreaded Walrus]] ^{[[User talk:Dreaded Walrus|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Dreaded Walrus|c]]} 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

=== Rewrite suggestion ===

In <nowiki>{{subst:uw-npov1|Article|Additional text}}</nowiki>, I think "appears to carry a non-neutral point of view" should say "appears to me." Also, after "Please remember to observe our core policies," I think the template should say something like," Here's why I think your contribution was not in neutral point of view:" --[[User talk:Chuck Marean|Chuck Marean]] 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:That's what the second parser is for, for clarifying why the template was issued if further clarification is required. And as I explained above, it should not be "appears to me" or anything similar. ^{[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]} 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

::I agree with Khukri. The template should really only be used if an edit pretty clearly violates NPOV - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arlen_Specter&diff=prev&oldid=189838871 here's] kind of an extreme example. If it's not pretty clear, then a template ought not be used.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

=== Explain, don’t libel ===

The warning templates I just reviewed claim without proof that somebody did something wrong. They are probably against the law in Florida and elsewhere. They ought to be rewritten to give just the facts of the edit being criticized, including proof. They should also give the facts of the person planning to use the template, such as it’s just his or her opinion, and point out that it is in fact a template message being used. The user should also explain how the edit being disliked could be improved. The “additional text section” should always be used. I understand Wikipedia’s policy is to always assume good faith. Yet, none of the warning templates I just looked at do that at all. The warnings should admit they are just an opinion. They should be polite and caring of the person being criticized.--[[User talk:Chuck Marean|Chuck Marean]] 10:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:Wrong. Proof can be provided using the second parser and the article name is the first parser. If you read the project page "They are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more." The template is a tool, and does meet these requirements that you so require. The application of the NOR warning to your talk page prior to your block, and that fact you received personal messages as well, should leave an editor in no doubt as to which were the ''offending'' edits.

:I've re-factored the talk page to put all of your comments in the same place as they pertain to the same issue. ^{[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]} 10:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:These templates ars only a way for a user to type something he means faster. If you have concerns regarding a single usage of a template, you should bring these concerns to the user that left the message. The "level 1" templates [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], which is not a free pass for everything but only means "first assume the user screwed up and did not mean to hurt the project". If the user continues there is then a need to be more pressing. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|<span style="color:#002BB8;">lucasbfr</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Lucasbfr|<span style="color:#001F7F;">talk</span>]]} 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

== When (not) to use <nowiki>{{uw-spam1}}</nowiki>? ==

(I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, but I couldn't find a better place.)

Is there a consensus that this template is appropriate in a case that is more likely the result of a user not understanding the wiki way than a blatant intention to spam? (Say a new user experiments with a link to a site in their sandbox. Much later in their second edit they turn two words into links: One a wikilink to an existing article, and one an external, but otherwise perfectly reasonable, link to the same site that appeared in their sandbox edit.)

[[WP:WikiProject Spam#Tag 'em to stop 'em]] seems to say, when in doubt ("suspicious edits"), tag. I looked this up after a more experienced editor told me that there was a consensus to use this template in such cases. I am feeling a bit uneasy about the thought that this could be general practice. In my example the text of the template clearly doesn't explain what was wrong about the edit (no external links in the main text). So the message would seem to be: You have done something wrong, but we are not even taking the time to explain to you what, exactly, was the problem. This seems to be potentially alienating, and not in line with our usual leniency. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 21:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:Similar to a previous post. This is where familiarity with the warnings comes into play. If you just slap a warning on a talk page without using either the article or the additional comment strings available within the template than your example would be accurate. But this is the fault of the editor not fully understanding the templates or using them to their potential, and not the template themselves. The templates were designed to be able to add additional information if so required to make the reason clearer. These are boilerplate templates with the ability to be slightly changed to meet individual circumstances, but taken from the front page ''"They are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more. If you cannot find a template that says what you want to say then go ahead and say it normally."''. Though in saying all this, if you can see a way where we can assume greater faith with the lvl 1 warning, please feel free to suggest it. Cheers ^{[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]} 22:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

::That's what I imagined. But then I felt a bit intimidated by that particular editor's response when I asked him about this. To be frank, I have the impression that he tries to avoid typing wherever possible and that he doesn't mind if it comes across as uncivil. I will think about the language of the template; perhaps there is a way to make it harder to abuse it in this way. Cheers. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)