Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

New template for removing the {{puf}} template

I have created Template:Uw-puf-remove, a new user warning template for removing the {{puf}} template, by analogy with Template:uw-copyright-remove. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

{{uw-vandalism1}}

It currently reads 'I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to {{{1}}}'. There has been some discussion of this and I'm surprised no grammatically correct solution was accepted; the current wording makes no sense. I thought it still had the perfectly sensible 'one or more', actually. I have heard the argument that 'one or more' makes it seem as if we are saying that 'your contribs all suck, who knows how many got reverted' - but, by that same logic, one might say that the wording 'such as' implies 'your contribs all suck, who knows which one(s) got reverted/to which page you contributed to/etc.'. Am I the only one who sees this?

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 [...]'.

To be grammatically correct, the template would have to say (roughly) 'I undid one or more of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to {{{1}}}' or 'I undid one of your recent contributions that you made to {{{1}}}'. It has been argued that the latter wording is too terse. I don't see the logic for this, however.

So which one should we go with: nonsensical and grammatically flawed, possibly too 'brushing-off', or too 'terse'? I would like to see us adopt wording that makes sense. Cathfolant (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Cathfolant (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That is, something to the effect of '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.'. How does that sound? Half-decent? 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'. Cathfolant (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Block template replace to {{BlockNotice}}

Can someone delete existing block templates and merge into this: {{BlockNotice}}?

The coding should look like this:

Extended content

== 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> == Usage == '''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>{{Subst:BlockNotice|'''Policy violation'''|'''Length of block'''}}~~~~</code> '''EXAMPLE:'''<br> {{BlockNotice|Vandalism|1 week}}[[User:Administrator|Administrator]] 00:00 January 1, 2011 '''CODE USED:''' <code>{{Subst:BlockNotice|Vandalism|1 week}}[[User:Administrator|Administrator]] 00:00 January 1, 2011</code>

Here's the final look it should look like:

Block Notice

Tariqmudallal (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Please open a broader discussion such an WP:RFC if you want to make this change, which is not nearly as minor as you seem to think. At the very least you should provide some hint of a reason why this would be desirable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, "In other words" reads confusingly and is a superfluous phrase. Words other than what? If the change were to proceed, I would suggest a rewording to: "Being blocked means you cannot edit or create pages,..." Hertz1888 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeking comment regarding possible new warning template

I think we need a warning template at multiple levels for users who added excessive plot detail to articles. Any comments or suggestions?    DKqwerty    04:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
If I missed an already-existing template for this, I apologize and just point me in the right direction.

transclusions

Please link this to a definition. 109.155.70.221 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)