Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 14: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace) (bot |
||
Line 579:
:As I stated elsewhere I like the tone of these messages, a more friendly way than the "official" templates of reaching out to the good-faith and reasonably literate new editors whom we want to encourage. I shall certainly be plagiarising them[[User:Noyster|: <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>]] [[User talk:Noyster|<span style="color:seagreen"> (talk),</span> ]] 08:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
== I just created a new uw template ==
I just created [[Template:Uw-1rr]] because I couldn't find a general template I could use with 1RR-restricted reversions. (I based it off of [[Template:Uw-3rr]].) The thing is, I'm not sure I went about creating it the right way. Is there an official process for this kind of stuff? Does it need to be approved or anything like that? I've never created a template for Wikipedia before. -- [[User:Gestrid|Gestrid]] ([[User talk:Gestrid#top|talk]]) 20:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
:I don't see anything technically wrong with your new template. But I am puzzled as to its proper use. It mentions:
::''while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—''even if you don't violate the one-revert rule''.
:I don't recall ever encountering the [[WP:1RR]] rule. Even reading that guideline sheds little light. Then there is the much more mysterious [[WP:0RR]] (zero revert rule). Frankly, both of these smack of [[entrapment]]. Maybe you can explain the logic behind all of this? —[[user:EncMstr|EncMstr]] ([[user talk:EncMstr|talk]]) 16:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|EncMstr}} The 1RR rule is mainly used in articles under ArbCom sanctions, such as, for example, the Arab-Israeli conflict (see [[WP:ARBPIA]]). As for the sentence you quoted, that's a modified version of what {{tlx|uw-3rr}} says (one revert instead of three). The reason I decided to keep it is because someone can continue to revert other people (aka edit-war) and only revert after the 24 hours have expired, which means it wouldn't be a 1RR violation. -- [[User:Gestrid|Gestrid]] ([[User talk:Gestrid#top|talk]]) 19:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
|