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

Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace.
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
m Robot: Archiving 3 threads from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace.
Line 2,235:
 
I noticed that we have multiple templates for users who talk on article pages. In addition to [[Template:uw-talkinarticle|uw-talkinarticle]] found on the list, we also have the uw-cia series ([[Template:uw-cia1|1]] [[Template:uw-cia2|2]] [[Template:uw-cia3|3]] [[Template:uw-cia4|4]]) of templates. The only reference I can find to these is [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archives/2007/01#How about this|a talk page archive from 2007]]. Shouldn't we decide on one or the other and delete what we don't decide on? --[[Special:Contributions/71.199.125.210|71.199.125.210]] ([[User talk:71.199.125.210|talk]]) 00:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
== [[Template:Uw-spamublock]] ==
 
I propose that the following text or something similar to it be added somewhere in the template:
*Note that this is not an automated process. Administrators will review your request carefully, so please do not submit botched unblock requests, as they will be declined.
This is because some people simply don't seem to get it (I'd link an example, but I'm afraid that could be a personal attack). This is a suggestion, not a request. [[User:Ginsuloft|Ginsuloft]] ([[User talk:Ginsuloft|talk]]) 13:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
:Given the way you described the problem, I think "frivolous", "inappropriate", "improper" or something would be better than "botched", because "botched" sounds like messing the template syntax up more than it does a bad reason. --[[Special:Contributions/71.199.125.210|71.199.125.210]] ([[User talk:71.199.125.210|talk]]) 03:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
::Yes, frivolous is what I meant and I agree with you. Spammers often submit requests that are doomed to be declined because they don't even counter the reason the block was issued, often repeatedly. It's always the spammers who do this, never vandals. This is just a guess but it may be sort of a [[learned helplessness]] they have acquired from spamming other sites, hoping that a bored/tired admin will just randomly accept their request so they can continue spamming. While this may be the case on some other sites, on Wikipedia it is obviously not possible because admins are selected by consensus and everyone can see your history and ask about any action you've done. [[User:Ginsuloft|Ginsuloft]] ([[User talk:Ginsuloft|talk]]) 14:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 
== Adding a sig to the template for uw:coi? ==
 
I didn't know the slightest way to go about requesting it, so I'm posting here. Is there a way to add an automated signature to the template for alerting people of a conflict of interest? The template in question is: <nowiki>{{subst:Uw-coi}}</nowiki>. It would just be fairly handy to have it automatically sign for you when posting it. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[user talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style='color: #19197;background-color: #FFFFFF;'> (。◕‿◕。)</span>''']] 11:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
:To be honest I don't know if this is exactly what you meant, but I added a parameter <code>sig=yes</code> similar to [[Template:Uw-block]]. It only works when the template is substituted and the word "yes" can be replaced with any word, even "no", but "yes" is recommended for clarity. [[User:Ginsuloft|Ginsuloft]] ([[User talk:Ginsuloft|talk]]) 12:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 
== Template:Uw-point ==
 
I wondered was a talk page template for users who are being [[WP:POINT]]y, and although {{tl|uw-point}} exists, it takes the odd standpoint of "your recent edit to the user page of another user could give an editor the impression that you are forcing your own point", which isn't really what WP:POINT is about. From the edit history it was created last July by a user "creating my first template", and has had no other edits since. Is it worth bringing this in line with WP:POINT? --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 13:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
:I updated the template to be more in line with WP:POINT. --[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] (<small>[[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;line-height:1.1em;vertical-align:-0.3em;font-size:75%;text-align:center;"><b>TALK<br />PAGE</b></span>]]</small>) 04:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)