Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Template index | User talk namespace
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:25, 14 February 2021 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

Uw-wrongreview

I stumbled across Uw-wrongview the other day. It's a template that warns pending changes reviewers they made a mistake. [1] It seems a little harsh. It might be worth toning down the language. Maybe something like this.

Information icon Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that your recent pending changes review to Test seems to violate our guidelines. Here is more info on our criteria for reviewing. Please try to follow our guidelines as closely as possible. If you have questions, just ask me on my talk page. Thanks. ~~~~

Thoughts? If there's consensus, maybe I'll edit the template. Thanks.

cc: @Berrely, Noyster, and KGirlTrucker81: –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Howdy folks. Any objections to me making uw-copyright1, uw-copyright2, etc. to go along with uw-copyright? I feel uw-copyright is way too strongly worded for a first warning. It is very WP:BITE. I think it'd be simplest to leave uw-copyright in place, so that it doesn't interfere with RedWarn, Twinkle, etc. So these templates would be in addition to uw-copyright. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

{{uw-copyright-new}} is the non WP:BITEy version. Copyright violation is a bright-line problem which doesn't lend itself to the 4 steps warning process. Cabayi (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: I disagree with making Template:uw-copyright a multi-level template because it is a single-level warning. Multiple violations should result in a block. Opal|zukor(discuss) 17:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This isn't the first time someone has proposed this, but it's always been shot down, for good reason. Copyright violations are serious enough that, however well-intentioned, cannot be allowed to stand (or recur) while we go through several steps of warnings. There should be only one level of warning here, and notwithstanding WP:BITE it needs to be firmly worded so as to stress the seriousness of the situation. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added {{Uw-copyright-new}} to the list of see alsos in {{Uw-copyright}}'s documentation. CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

Please change the use of the word "vandalism" in Template:Uw-test3 to "disruptive editing", as the vandalism policy specifically excludes tests. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Policy says Editing tests are considered vandalism only when a user continues to make test edits despite receiving numerous warnings. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Change to:

Extended content
{{{icon|[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]}}} Hello, I'm <includeonly>[[User:{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:REVISIONUSER}}|{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:REVISIONUSER}}]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[User:Example|Example]]</noinclude>. I noticed that you {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{diff|}}}|[{{{diff}}} made a comment]|made a comment}} {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|on the page [[:{{{1}}}]]}} that didn't seem very [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]]. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:<includeonly>{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:REVISIONUSER}}</includeonly><noinclude>Jimbo Wales</noinclude>|my talk page]]. {{{2|Thank you.}}} <noinclude>
{{Templatesnotice|series = uw-npa|max = 4im|extra usage=* You can add an optional <code>diff=</code> parameter to specify the URL of the edit containing the personal attack.}}
</noinclude>

Reason: Some comments are not removed due to necessity in reports at places like ANI and AN3. Firestar464 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Firestar464:  altered; the phrase "so it has been removed" has been changed to "so it may have been removed". Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"Hover over the curly braces to see a summary of the contents."

In the template listings, each chunk of templates is prefixed by this in small green text: "Hover over the curly braces to see a summary of the contents."

As far as I can see only {{tltts}} allows this behavior, but many entries use {{tltt}} instead where no such tooltip is generated. Anyone knows what gives? CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In August, I proposed the removal of tltts in favor of an accessible solution, at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk_namespace/Archive 17#Accessibility improvements. I can't speak to the origin of the inconsistency, but any expansion of the use of tltts should be mindful of its inaccessibility and that a better solution should be sought. --Bsherr (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me suggest two solutions: either implement the tooltips for all, not just some, entries (possibly in an accessible way) or remove the little green text :) CapnZapp (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on uw-vandalism1

I wish to request an alteration of {{uw-vandalism1}} to: "Hello, I'm Opalzukor. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks." The text comes from {{uw-disruptive1}} and links to policies and the welcome page. The source code for the text to be added is: 

Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]. You can find information about these at our [[Help:Getting started|welcome page]] which also provides further information about [[Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia|contributing constructively to this encyclopedia]].

Thanks for your time. Opal|zukor(discuss) 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-vandalism1 TFD closed as no consensus

Template:Uw-vandalism1 was recently nominated for merging here and later relisted and closed here.

However, it was closed as no consensus which doesn't seem representative for a simple yes/no question. It wasn't that we couldn't agree in which direction to go. There were only one suggestion - to merge and this was substantially opposed. The community clearly saw value in retaining the template - and the TfD should thus have been closed as keep.

Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1) Reword {{Uw-copyright-new}} to not welcome the user, since I fail to see the difference between Template:Uw-copyright-new and Template:Welcome-copyright. As I understand it, Uw-copyright-new is supposed to be a less WP:BITEy version of {{Uw-copyright}}, while {{Welcome-copyright}} is a welcome template that also just happens to send a similarly non-bitey message on copyright?

2) merge/move Template talk:Uw-copyright-new here. That is, make the talk page of the template redirect here, just like Template talk:Uw-copyright does.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

1)  Done CapnZapp (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Consolidating misleading edit summary warning templates

A year or so ago, I created {{uw-mislead1}} and {{uw-mislead2}}, a mistake since I had not come across {{uw-wrongsummary}}, of which it is a duplicate. InvalidOS later created {{uw-mislead3}}, and I just now discovered that {{Uw-wrongsummary-strong}} also exists. I proposed merging them a few months ago after discovering the duplication, but the discussion got a little muddled because there was some question about whether it should be a multi-level or single-level (we didn't know about the -strong version at the time), and closer Primefac opted to declare no consensus rather than do a bartender's close.

Can we figure out what we want to do with these templates and consolidate them? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that this warning will be given either in addition to or instead of a more germane warning. For example, for a user who vandalizes a page and tries to hide it with an innocent-looking edit summary, the user should simply be given a uw-vandalismX warning, as the misleading edit summary goes without saying. I also don't think it is helpful for a user to receive two user warnings at the same time. For example, for a user who adds inappropriately biased content and tries to hide it with an innocent-looking edit summary, I think it's superfluous to give the user a uw-npovX warning and a warning about the misleading edit summary simultaneously. Rather (and this applies to the former example too), the misleading edit summary can be used as evidence of a lack of good faith to start with a stronger warning, like uw-npov3. So, what's left is a situation in which the user has made an otherwise fine contribution, but given a misleading edit summary, and I am speculating that will very often be an "assume good faith" situation, meaning a kindly worded single-level warning may be sufficient. However, if there is anecdotal evidence of escalating situations with misleading edit summaries, I am open to a multi-level warning. --Bsherr (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, that's a very reasonable concern, and I agree that if a vandal uses an inappropriate summary, it's better to just go with a strong vandalism warning by itself. In my experience, this is a warning that isn't so much used for vandals as it is for at least mediumly experienced editors who want to add something that they know will be controversial, so to avoid scrutiny they use a misleading summary. The edit itself isn't worthy of a warning because it's just bold, but the summary is a problem and indicates an issue that could escalate toward ANI, etc. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Yup, I can imagine that. But, per WP:BRD, there's going to be a talk page discussion, so would it be inevitable that an inappropriate edit summary would be addressed personally anyway? Or, couldn't uw-disruptiveX be used appropriately for such a situation? --Bsherr (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, it's generally better to address user conduct issues on a user page, rather than article talk pages. There's inevitably some mixing, so in some situations it might be addressed at the article talk page, but in many I think it's appropriate to have this template available. {{uw-wrongsummary}} dates back to 2006, so there's clearly a desire for something to exist here; the main question I'm hoping to sort out is whether it ought to be multi-level or not. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: So perhaps we are looking at a level 1-3 series being best, then. Do you think there is redundancy between uw-misleadX and uw-besX? --Bsherr (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, interesting; I hadn't come across {{uw-bes1}} etc. (it took me a minute to get that it stands for "bad edit summary") That template appears to be more for editors who write very uncivil things/attacks in their summaries, which is a somewhat different circumstance. I wonder whether it's necessary to have that template at all, since I'd think it'd be better to address the underlying behavior rather than the fact that it was done in an edit summary. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Uw-bes1 says appropriate, civil or otherwise constructive. Certainly civil invokes no personal attacks. I agree with you that this behavior would already be covered by uw-npaX, and that the need for a user warning dealing specifically with edit summaries is questionable. Appropriate and otherwise constructive are broad and ambiguous, but I think readily cover a misleading edit summary. So, the question is, which templates should be kept and which deleted? I think we agree that if uw-misleadX is kept, uw-besX should be deleted in favor of uw-misleadX and uw-npaX, and the two uw-wrongsummary templates deleted in favor of uw-misleadX. Unless there's anything else, I'll leave it there to see if there are other opinions. I think we're on the same page that the product of this discussion will be a consensus on which templates to take to TfD in a single nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bumping thread. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Carry on I encourage you two to boldly get on with it @Bsherr and Sdkb: - I agree there's far too many of these very similar templates, and trust you to delete just the right ones :) CapnZapp (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't feel comfortable going off of the informal consensus here yet given that the prior TfD could be seen as stronger. At this point, I've more than done my penance for accidentally creating a duplicate, and if others want it carried through they'll have to speak up enough to allow that to happen. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp, Bsherr, and Sdkb: I haven't been here for very many years, but was just curious how much things had changed. If you think there are a lot of templates now, here's a list of what we had to contend with when we started the whole uw- templates process back in 2007. Nice to see it was still hidden there. Khukri 17:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, I had forgotten about that list. Looks like I have a few signatures to add in the action column. :-) Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Khukri! --Bsherr (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-attack

Template:Uw-attack has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Uw-spamblock" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Uw-spamblock. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Template:Uw-spamblock until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 December 2020

Please change "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia." to "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without adequate explanation." (Please do not make it bold, I added that for emphasis.) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 December 2020

{{{icon|[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]}}} Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] while interacting with other editors{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|, which you did not do on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. If you happen to be new here, please take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{{2|Thank you.}}}

Extended content


Reason: Sometimes, even experienced editors may need to be templated regarding this. However, for them, it would be very strange to receive a message regarding taking a look at the welcome page. Therefore, I propose editing the second sentence to be more directed at newcomers so as to make it less awkward. Firestar464 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Firestar464:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: @Firestar464: Hmm, I'm not sure this was a good change, to be honest. Giving an experienced user any kind of level-1 template will always be odd and can seem a bit patronising, since they all start with "Welcome to Wikipedia!". Addressing an experienced editor with a "we would like you to...", where "we" is the collective of Wikipedia editors, is also pretty supercilious, not to mention "everybody is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia"! In fact, the only reason to choose any level-1 template rather than a level-2 or an individualised note is surely to welcome new users who can't be expected to know Wikipedia policies, so I don't think "if you happen to be new" is an improvement. Users who get this template will be new in almost every case, and if there are exceptions, the editor placing the notice can always go in and edit it after it's posted, and should edit a lot more than just the "welcome page" sentence. In the case of AGF, I think it is unlikely (though not impossible) that an experienced editor will never have heard of it. I mean, AGF is not like the more obscure points of the Manual of Style – it's invoked all the time! A quick note on the lines of "To me, your edit here [diff] doesn't look like you were assuming good faith" will almost certainly be more helpful than a templated message, even if that editor doesn't have any previous AGF warnings on their talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
To editor Bonadea: thank you! On reflection, it would seem that {{Uw-agf1}} should be used only for new, inexperienced editors and {{Uw-agf2}} used when a more experienced editor forgets to AGF. I could be wrong, so waiting on Firestar464 for further guidance. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
To editor Bonadea: the edit has been undone pending more input. Perhaps the WikiProject info page could use clarification on this issue? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To editors Bonadea and Firestar464: tried some new wording in the sandbox, and comparisons can be found on the test cases page. Please let me know your thoughts, and feel free to improve the wording in the sandbox where needed. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The sandbox has gone "live" this date. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

How to appropriately warn a vandal with multiple edits.

If a vandal made 4 vandalism edits. should you give.

  1. Onelevel #1 warning or
  2. four level #1 warning or
  3. Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 warning? --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
More context needed. Four edits on the same article, or on different articles? Were they reverted at all? Are they editing rapidly? That said, I believe somewhere it's mentioned that #1 is typically assumes good faith, #2 is a neutral assumption, and #3 and up are assuming they're deliberately editing in poor faith. DonIago (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Doniago, The question I had in mind was about different articles. No they were not reverted at all. 4 edits and stopped for a day. What is the commonly acceptable response among the 3 options that I listed above ?
(The question is remotely related to this User talk:YOGAMAYEE, their edits are not vandalism but poorly sourced to a blog, may be they are advertising their blog here. Although I have posted a few templates, but I wanted to be sure to choose the commonly acceptable response next time I come across such a case. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
If it's four edits to different articles within a short period of time, I'd likely give them a #1 if it's "maybe they don't realize they're committing vandalism" and a #2 if it's "they probably know this isn't really kosher" and a #3 if it's "there's no way they don't know this is vandalism". Whichever one it was, I'd only issue one of them though. I don't believe in giving an editor multiple warnings for multiple edits within a short period of time. Give them a fair chance to see one warning before applying another. DonIago (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I will follow the same next time I come across such a case. I think it will be helpful to document this advice somewhere on WP namespace so that users reading the page know what to do, instead of guessing one. Thanks a lot for taking out the time to respond to my query. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the compliment, but I have no idea how my advice would stand up against a more general consensus. Unfortunately no other editors have responded here thus far. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
All that advice appears to be sound about a subject that has gray areas and can be confusing at times. If put to consensus the advice from many editors would probably be "all over the map", kind of like when a large group of politicians try to get something done. Best to both of you this holiday season! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, I see. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can speak for myself and I am convinced by Doniago's choice of 1 template depending upon the severity. Giving one template also involves less work. Happy holidays to you too! Walrus Ji (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Paine! Season's Greetings to you as well! DonIago (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Doniago's advice matches what I've always done and what I believe to be usual practice. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly inappropriate icon for Template:Uw-agf-sock

I'm a bit puzzled as to why {{uw-agf-sock}} implies "assuming good faith", however uses the icon used for level three warnings — an icon used whenever assuming bad faith. Wouldn't it be more reasonable and less BITEy if we went with the usual File:Information orange.svg instead? Chlod (say hi!) 04:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd , seems more appropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Whoops. Accidentally forgot about this thread. Making the changes now. Thank you for the responses! Chlod (say hi!) 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced and plain wrong :)

When I use the {{uw-unsourced1}} template after reverting, I have trouble with the wording: "if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so." Generally a user has added or changed something that's clearly incorrect, and often there are existing sources that contradict it. Otherwise, I wouldn't revert it, but add "citation needed". I'd like to change it so that it gives more of an indication that there seems to be a problem with the information, and doesn't so strongly encourage re-adding it. I'll work on a suggestion for re-writing it - feedback is welcome. --IamNotU (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't you rather use {{uw-error1}} in such cases? Admittedly it also includes a solicitation to include a citation, but at least it specifies it should be to a reliable source. Even if you're certain no such sources exist, using the template encourages the editor to take the path of relying on sources, rather than adding what they "know" to be correct. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You're right that {{uw-error1}} sounds pretty good, but the problem is that that series of templates is about "Introducing deliberate factual errors", in other words bad faith, and {{uw-error2}} and the rest mention vandalism. What I'm talking about is good-faith edits in the sense that the person believes they're right and are helping Wikipedia, but they're putting something from their own knowledge that they're mistaken about. An example might be when people write in the "samosa" article that they originate in India, which is a common misperception. The problem isn't only that it's unsourced, but also that it's wrong, though not deliberately so. "Please cite a source and add it back" implies that the information is ok but it just needs a source, and might encourage them to find some unreliable recipe blog that says so. But "stop your vandalism" isn't right either. Neither really explain the problem. I think it should say something along the lines of "Please check the validity of the information you'd like to add. All content must be verifiable in a reliable, published source". I'd like to get across the idea that there's a good chance that there's a problem with the content, and probably they should not add it back. --IamNotU (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I've always taken "deliberate factual errors" to mean the edit was purposeful, not accidental, but still incorrect, and possibly good faith. Often this is indicated by their edit summary. I use this when someone is making a change they genuinely believe is correct, but it isn't, usually as determined by reliable sources. If this is what the warning means, it should be clarified. BilCat (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The type of edit you describe is what I'm talking about. Here's one I reverted just now: [2] - it has an edit summary that on the surface is reasonable, it's good-faith, but it's unambiguously wrong, and contradicts the cited source. I did use {{uw-error1}} in this case, but it doesn't fit well. If it escalates, {{uw-error2}} says "Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism", {{uw-error3}} says "If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information", and {{uw-error4}}, "the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information". So I think it's pretty clear that it's about deliberately adding information they know is incorrect. I use it sometimes for example if someone changes a sourced population figure from 2,135,000 to "20 millions" - any reasonable person would know that can't be correct. --IamNotU (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Bull in a china shop?

Is Template:Uw-bics an approved warning template? Seems a bit too "pointed". BilCat (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, certainly not. It's so vague that it's unhelpful. I'd welcome a deletion discussion, renaming so it's clear that it's not an "approved" warning template, and perhaps a move to the author's own space if that's appropriate and possible. ElKevbo (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the links of this added to WP:WARN and Template:Single notice links. The template should be deleted. Train of Knowledge, you're correct that there are many users who do fit the description at WP:BICS, and you've made a reasonable summary of that article. However, telling this so directly to someone with a template would I think likely be taken as an insult. I don't think it would have a positive effect. There are certain essays that may be valuable, but editors are cautioned against utilizing them too freely. For example, WP:CIR is used often by admins in WP:ANI discussions, because by that time things have become very serious. But it has a warning: "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack." I think WP:BICS is in the same sort of category. Also, unlike WP:CIR, it's hardly ever linked to, which indicates that few people find it useful. There just isn't enough support for it to be made into a standard template. In the future, it would be good if you would make a proposal on this talk page for any new user warning templates, in order to get feedback before creating and linking them. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-bics

Template:Uw-bics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently many warning templates start with something like "Hi, I'm [[User:Example|Example]]". For users without userpages, this is a redlink (example), and might confuse the receiving user (or even tempt them to create it with vandalism). Instead, we could have the template produce "Hi, I'm [[User talk:Example|Example]]" if the userpage doesn't exist. Someone warning another user will almost always have a talk page (and if not, I'd still rather link to it than the userpage). Alternatively, we could disable the link entirely in this case. Thoughts? — The Earwig talk 23:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a link is needed at all. The message should be signed, which would include an appropriate link. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've thought the self-identification in the first sentence is redundant to the signature, but others thought it more friendly. I still support removing it altogether or, at least, "Hi." seems enough to me. But if we keep the self-identification, I do think it ought to be linked, which is typical of first references to usernames, and I would avoid the talk page link lest it tempt the recipient to use it, splitting the conversation between two talk pages. --Bsherr (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

proposal that DIFF number should be a mandatory field for all warnings

Given that warnings happen in response to at least one edit, I think it should be mandatory to include at least one diff number when warning people.

The Special:Diff/ command could be coded into the template, following the slash with the inputted number.

This would avoid when people are unclear about something when issuing warnings to others.

Like for example "you were rude on a talk page" would be more clear if someone only made one edit to the talk page, but less clear if they were making several replies to different parties: it would not be clear which of the replies is being called rude.

Would this be something difficult to incorporate?

An error message could be displayed if a diff number is not inserted, to encourage it's use.

This could encourage more responsible and useful warnings. WakandaQT (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I think it would be good to encourage people and make it easier to add diffs. But I don't support making them mandatory. I usually add diffs, but in some cases I don't want to because it's obvious and/or because the warning applies to several edits and I don't want to single one out. --IamNotU (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with above. Users should be encouraged to add diffs as it may at times be helpful, but making it mandatory could have a prohibitive effect. - wolf 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Hi. I would like to replace the part "account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site" with "account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site". I believe this as ithe original wording is very wordy, confusing, and grammatically wrong. Steve M (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace/Archive_18&oldid=1006675222"