Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 13

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 01:31, 21 November 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

{{Uw-ublock}}

Sending completely new users to Special:ListUsers comes across as slightly intimidating, in my opinion. How about the template proposing them to check availability of another username at the SUL Info? — Yerpo Eh? 13:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, especially since every account is global now so even if there is only a local account you still can't create the global account. However I think a wikilink is probably better than an external link (tools:~quentinv57/sulinfo/). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Ooh, I didn't know that it's possible to link to the toolserver like that, thanks. — Yerpo Eh? 08:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Uw-unsourced templates are counterproductive to the encyclopedia

The uw-unsourced templates seem pretty WP:BITEish. Aside from their language, which misinterprets WP:V as "every piece of information must have a citation" and not "please cite reliable sources when a statement if a statement is likely to be challenge", it's hard for me to see them as more than impersonal responses to the contributions of newbies. If an experienced editor added a piece of information another editor interpreted as controversial, the editors would likely discuss the issue with specific language on the talk page. Slapping a uw-unsourced template on a newbie's talk page seems like an impersonal way to shut what could have been a productive conversation down. Is there any reason to keep these templates around? It seems far too easy for a protective editor to use them to push newcomers away from their article. (I've noticed this issue has been raised a couple of months ago couple of months ago, which primarily focused on the misinterpretation of WP:V and not the inappropriateness of having an "unsourced information" template at all.) --Lunar Jesters (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea of it is to be used when the information they added did need a citation. If editors use it when they shouldn't, that should be addressed with that editor. If the wording implies every piece of information needs a citation, it should just be updated to fix that rather than removing the templates altogether. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I just can't think of any situation where a template would be more appropriate than addressing the specific piece of information. As a hypothetical example, "Thanks for contributing to the coffee article. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that suggests coffee can cause pancreatic cancer. I've tried to verify the fact you added, but I couldn't find anything on Google or Google Books. Could you point me in the direction of where you learned that coffee causes pancreatic cancer?" This sort of personalized response seems much more likely to lead editors to learn about Wikipedia policies and continue contributing productively to the encyclopedia. An impersonal template is more likely to put editors on the defensive and make them leave Wikipedia in frustration. --Lunar Jesters (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

uw-vandalism1 warning

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 12#Template:uw-vandalism1 - new wording, I think Template:uw-vandalism1 should stick to the "I reverted" language. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: @Steven (WMF): ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree we should stick to the "I undid" language. James asked what harm there was in using the "was reverted" kind of language, and the answer is that we know it makes the warning less effective. This was very heavily discussed before implementing, at this 30 day RFC. Prior to the RFC, we ran randomized, controlled tests of versions that used active voice and where the user introduced themselves, against versions that used passive voice. We ended up proposing the current "I reverted" language because it was more effective at driving away vandals and introducing the rules. Considering that, using TW and Huggle, it is far more common to revert and warn simultaneously, the gains we got in making the warnings more effective are worth the comparatively small annoyance of needing to use a separate template like {{uw-vandalism0}} in an edge case. Plus, and this part is just my personal opinion as a writer, using passive voice is bad grammar. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
When passive voice is needed, I personally prefer to use {{uw-test2}} instead of {{uw-vandalism0}} as it still assumes good faith but puts the warning at level 2 in case it really is a bad faith vandal we are dealing with. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe template:uw-disruptive1 needs a active voice makeover. Dreth Phantomhive [talk to me] 19:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:uw-inline-el

Hi,

I've come across {{uw-inline-el}}, which I think is suitable for adding to this project (at least after the bit of tidying myself and Scott Martin have done. Are there any hoops I should jump through before I add {{single notice}} to the template and add it to the list at {{single notice links}}?

While we're on the subject, would it make more sense for this to be moved to {{uw-inline-el1}}, possibly with higher levels of its own or possibly with higher levels redirecting to the uw-spam series?

—me_and 18:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No hoops, add freely.
I'd avoid making it into a series, unless strongly needed, as the proliferation of templates is an ongoing problem. Simplify, when possible! –Quiddity (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There used to be a useful warning template for ignorant removals of redlinks, but I see it was changed years ago and later deleted (years ago). I find myself composing a redlink removal warning frequently, so I would personally like to have it in Twinkle's choice of single issue notices. I have composed (recomposed?) such a template {{uw-redlink}}, but I am not sure of the process to incorporate it into TW. I would appreciate comments on the validity of such a user warning template as well as making it available in Twinkle. —EncMstr (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm not sure how/where templates get added to Twinkle, but asking at WT:TW is the best bet - I see a few similar requests in the archives there. –Quiddity (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Flagging templates in the source code

There's recently been some back-and forth in {{uw-vandalism1}} over whether to include the <!--Template:uw-vandalism1-->:

  • Codename Lisa removed the comment as it "provoked a hostile response"; even though the template expands to something that assumes good faith and doesn't mention vandalism, I can understand an editor seeing the comment and objecting to the accusation of vandalism.
  • Jackmcbarn restored the comment as it's useful to know which template left the message.
  • Codename Lisa swapped Template:uw-vandalism1 for oldid=580227252, saying it "serves the same purpose but doesn't have that bad effect".

I don't understand the meaning of the oldid string; is it intended to just be an arbitrary string that someone could search for if they needed to? Or can it be used in some way I don't understand to reference the actual template?

In any case, I suspect this would (a) benefit from some wider discussion (or at least awareness), and (b) whatever conclusion is reached should probably be applied across the user warning templates, in the name of consistency.

For my part, I entirely understand Codename Lisa's objection to having the template name in the comments, but I do think we need some way of referencing the template in question.

—me_and 12:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.
Oldid can be used to refer to the template even without knowing the template name. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=580227252. You will see what I mean. I though by including this id, elite editors who actually need to know where the template has come from can find out, while the reader don't take offense. People who do know about this little trick are already WP:DTTR-eligible.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I find the comment which gives the subst'ed template's name quite helpful, and the obscure |oldid= certainly doesn't have the same immediacy. As to the root complaint: I find it hard to believe that a comment in the source code "provoked a hostile response". Examples? If the message was used with reason, what's to be hostile about? If the message was unjustified, apologise. IMO the original comment should stay/be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Michael. Politeness involves being gentle and delicate. Your heavy-handed treatment of either I am right or I am not is in conflict with this tenet and the purpose of this template. When it is a matter of straight talk, send a {{Uw-vandalism2}}. With this template, the purpose is to say "your edit was bad" without even mentioning "vandalism".
Wikipedia's founding policy is Wikipedia:Civility not Wikipedia:Insert HTML comment because some people find it useful. It is the second that gets sacrificed for the first, not the other way around.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
This is solution without a problem. There is no reason to hide the source template name. I have been around a long time and done a fair number of edits and use that information on a regular basis to determine what response to take to something another editor is done. I'm not an elite editor and have no idea what that is. So please just leave that in there. Don't make the job harder for everyone other then the mythical elite editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I partially agree, in that I can't recall this ever being a problem before. At the same time, I do recognize Codename Lisa's point insofar as the level one template is specifically designed to not use the word "vandalism". I don't think we really anticipated that the recipient would read the code. What if we changed the comment to refer to the short form, "uw-v1"?--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Vegaswikian that there is no evidence that this is an actual problem, but I think that Mojo Hand's solution preserves the useful feature of the commetn while avoiding any possible offense. DES (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The hidden line is to help idenify the template name, which is not carried over in the subst action. I believe. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 20:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the option suggested by Mojo Hand works for me if we really need to make a change. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello guys.
I love compromises and Mojo Hand's suggestion works for me. However, someone please tell me why is this comment is so important that you guys feel you can overlook hurting someone's feelings. In other words, I have been manually stripping this comment from my messages a lot lately; what harm did I do?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Ypu make it harder for someone later reviewing the talk page to determine just what template was used in a particular instance, and almost impossible to do a search to see where the template is begin used, which various people do to spot check if it is being used appropriately. DES (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Right (and ec) - I personally find the comments to be a useful shorthand to confirm what levels and types of messages have been sent to the user without having to read the full language of each message. I also believe some scripts use the comments in their process, though I'm not positive about that.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I also agree Mojo Hand option is best, if we actually need to change anything. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I probably should have looked at the talk page before reverting. I've restored the comment because there are AV bots and scripts that depend on that HTML comment. Whatever the consensus here is, make sure you notify all the people who use those tools and their developers about the change BEFORE you make it. Legoktm (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Small problem: I do not know any of them and – no offense intended but – the guys here have so far given a weasel wordy "some script" answer. So, even if you put a gun to my head and say "call them or I'll shoot", I can't. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Huggle, ClueBot, WAVE, and probably others. You also can't just change one template, you need to change ALL of them. I disagree that a consensus has been reached, I only found this when my script stopped working, and I don't see anything wrong with the current wording. I'll leave my full thoughts below. Legoktm (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Your script stopped working? How could it stop working when there are still millions of substitutions of this template out there with the disputed HTML comment in place?
Legoktm, what did your script do?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
My script looked for the string "uw-vandalism1", so it kept flagging users who were receiving level 2 warnings without level 1 ones, even though they were warned properly. Legoktm (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, am I correct to assume you have permission to edit the said script? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. Legoktm (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Should I broadcast a notice in WP:AN and WP:VP? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
That would be helpful. Legoktm (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I fully understand Codename Lisa's points, and I agree that it would be better to avoid the word "vandalism". However, considering that tools such as Huggle depend on such tags to correctly identify what warnings have been issued to editors, and that it is not at all clear to me that any attempt has been made to ensure that the maintainers of such tools have been consulted, nor even informed, of this change, changing the template now is likely to cause considerable problems. Also, the problem that Codename Lisa mentions is very unlikely to be common, as most new editors will not search through the code and find the offending text. That being so, the balance of benefit has to be in keeping the status quo, at least until more has been done to avoid the problems the change will cause. Also, contrary to Codename Lisa's latest edit summary, I do not see consensus for the change in this discussion. I do see some support for the idea of the change, but I also see both comments that oppose it, and comments that indicate that, while the idea is a good one, there are disadvantages in rushing ahead. Edit-warring to keep the change in is not constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree that this is a good change. The template is named "uw-vandalism1", so there is no reason to not include that. If a user gets offended, that's unfortunate, but it means people should stop using templated (or this specific one at least) notices for non-vandals/good-faith editors. Legoktm (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've just fully protected the article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the issue here instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Good move. I just looked at the edit comments there and they are misleading. Contrary to the claims, there is no consensus here to change anything. From this discussion, I think there is one editor in favor of changing and everyone else opposed. That is no place near a consensus to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
      I don't consider myself to be opposed to change; I can see how there could be a problem with using the word "vandal" even in a comment (although I'd still like to see the "hostile response" Codename Lisa referred to). I do think any change needs to have thought and discussion, though – the wide use of this script by automated tools means we can't just dive in and start changing things without at least attempting to understand and mitigate the knock-on impact of such changes. —me_and 10:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I also was not strongly opposed to any change, although I wasn't convinced of the need for it either. DES (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Inclusion of the template name in a wikitext comment is the usual practice for all warning templates, and does not seem accusatory or otherwise problematic. Also, it appears that semi-automated tools such as Huggle rely upon the comment to identify previous warnings issued. This itself is not without difficulties: an editor might have removed prior warnings. Does Huggle consult previous revisions of talk pages? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    AFAIK, it doesn't. That's an edge case though, most vandals don't remove warnings from their talk page. Legoktm (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Request to remove the |link= from Template:Uw-vandalism1 because File:Information.svg requires attribution with its license. I had done this before the edit war that it is now fullly protected from and it was only very recently that it was randomly unlinked by User:DavidLeighEllis. Thanks. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello, RedRose64. How do you do?
I know how the file is tagged. I disagree with the tag. This logo is certainly no more complex than Windows Vista's logo, which – after two deletion requests on Commons – is considered {{PD-textlogo}}. The icon in question is essentially an "i" on a filled circle; neither typeface nor simple shapes like circle are copyright-protected in U.S. laws and the shine effect is certainly not original enough. For more information, see Commons:TOO. If you are not convinced, perhaps we should request input from other experienced editors like User:Masem, User:Stefan2 and User:Magog the Ogre or take it to license review page.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Well if you believe that the license is incorrect and are willing to argue it, you are free to try to get the license changed down at Commons:Image:Information.svg. However, right now, the license requires attribution, and the good folks in Commons are pretty well versed in copyright. It can either be PD and not require attribution or CC and require attribution. Not both. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Have to agree with Ramaksoud2000 and Redrose64 here – either it gets tagged as public domain or it gets attribution; since the former hasn't happened, the latter should. —me_and 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I could equally argue that "since the former hasn't happened, the former should." At least, my argument has the merit of being supported by laws. However, changing the license while this discussion is in progress is a gross disruptive editing, which you are apparently expecting me to do. I am afraid I am unwilling to engage in disruptive editing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not telling you do anything. Do not put words into my mouth. I am saying that if you believe your position is correct and can argue it, have a discussion in Commons about it. Hence the "try to get the license changed down at Commons:Image:Information.svg." How would it be disruptive to have a discussion? The consensus here seems to be that the current license must be changed before we start acting on the change and to change it, you must discuss it in Commons. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 18:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@codename Lisa: You couldn't do it even if you did agree since it is fully protected to stop the edit war that you were participating in. It doesn't look like you two are going to agree on this so I would suggest some form of WP:DR to form a consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution opened Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages.2FUser_talk_namespace.23Edit_Request Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 Not done. As the template is currently protected to stop edit warring, any substantive change made during this period should demonstrably be the result of consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: What do you consider consensus here? WP:DRN has failed due to Codename Lisa not wishing to take part.[1] Nonetheless, the editor who made the change we're requesting be reverted has now said they don't object to reverting it,[2] which means the only objector is Codename Lisa.
Mostly I'm trying to avoid starting an RFC or similar, as I don't want the overhead, but that's the only next step I can see if this isn't sufficient consensus.
—me_and 18:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
If Beeblerox doesn't respond by the time the PP expires, I'm going ahead and changing it. This is a copyright violation and Codename Lisa has gotten to the point of being disruptive, refusing to engage in any type of conversation. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
My only concern here is that edit warring not resume. I realize neither of you was involved in that edit war, but a very solid reason is needed for any edit made through full protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand... Someone created a {{PD-textlogo}}, but released it under a more restrictive license? Codename Lisa (or someone), why don't you just make a new svg to replace it and release it under the proper license? Why so much argument over something so trivial? Mojoworker (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Without meaning to take side here, I'd like to clarify a couple of things. First, a person voting "oppose" and then not participating in a DRN talk is nowhere near disruptive editing; that's his or her prerogatives. Second, a DRN discussions has several other prerequisites; without them, the volunteer may just slam it shut, though they don't do it when there is only one violation and significant hope to fix that once the talk is started. In this case, I count three violations:
  1. "Avoid discussing editor behavior or conduct, just content please". Ramaksoud2000 violated this by two direct personal attacks, two misrepresentation of the facts and giving the impression that he would have not been in DRN if the template was not edit protected; hence he has no interest in dispute resolution if he could avoid it.
  2. "The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page". This is not the case. The proper course would have been to "request input from other experienced editors like User:Masem, User:Stefan2 and User:Magog the Ogre or take it to license review page." Strangely enough, this is CL's suggestion. Yet, DRN case states the opposite and says "Codename Lisa thought that this would be disruptive editing for some reason".
  3. "We focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy." Again, it is obvious that the participant weren't there for a compromise. Three out of the five are literally saying we're victorious and one of them is adding where is my victory parade? For those who don't know: A consensus is state where the proponent shakes the hand of the opponent and says "thanks, it was a pleasure"; while the opponent says "pleasure was all mine".
User:TransporterMan summarizes the state of affair very succinctly: "Futile". That discussion would never have started and even if it did, it would have gone nowhere. Still, if you guys don't start discussing what actually matter, with consensus in mind, you should expect the worst punishment in Wikipedia: Not a block, ban or sanction, but finding that your only audience is a wall. Fleet Command (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
@FleetCommand:Where do suggest to take it from here? Codename Lisa believes the license is incorrect. That's fine. It may very well be. I invited him or her to have a discussion on Commons where editors experienced in these matters reside, and where the license can actually be changed because the file is actually hosted there. Codename Lisa said themselves that having a discussion there would be disruptive. I disagree and an admin suggested DRN. I go to DRN, however, Codename Lisa shuts it all down with no comment on where they would like this to go from there. They say it is the wrong venue but do not specify the venue they want. They say that the correct course of action would be to take the image to a license review is exactly what I am saying to do on Commons has they have a whole process for this and the image is there. In addition, I apologize to Codename Lisa since both of you feel I've made personal attacks however that was not my intention. What do you suggest since you think we have failed? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 13:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there a bug in mw:Echo? I received a notification when FleetCommand mentioned me today, but not when Codename Lisa mentioned me last week.
For this file, File:Information.svg, I would like to make a comparison with La trahison des images, a famous painting by René Magritte. The task when you look at the copyright status of a file is that you need to check whether you use a copyrighted portion of it or not. A pipe is not copyrightable as it is a useful object, but a painting of a pipe is clearly copyrightable. Thus, if you use the painting to create a real pipe, you are not violating the copyright of the painting. The same is true with fonts. A font is a computer program which draws letters on a screen or a paper. The computer program may be copyrighted (see Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.), but the drawn letters are not copyrighted (see Eltra Corp. v. Ringer).
You could say that an SVG file consists of three parts:
  • Computer instructions: The file is a computer program which generates certain shapes and may therefore be copyrighted in the same way as a computer font.
  • Text: The source code consists of text, and you could write the text in a "creative" way, or, say, include poetry in a comment in the source code. This code seems to have been generated by Inkscape, so I do not think that the code can be considered as creative "literature".
  • Output: The file outputs a drawing. In MediaWiki, this takes the form of PNG files at various resolutions.
When an SVG file is uploaded to a Wikimedia project, you need to consider all three parts, as you include the unaltered SVG file. An SVG file can only be tagged as {{PD-ineligible}} if all three parts are below the threshold of originality. However, when the file appears on a page on Wikipedia, you only use the generated PNG files. As you are not using parts 1 or 2, you only need to consider whether part 3 consists of any creative contributions.
The template {{uw-vandalism1}} uses a very small image (). You can barely see the visual effects and I think that you can hardly say that there is anything creative there. I do not think that the 25×25 pixels PNG thumbnail can be seen as something copyrightable. Therefore, it shouldn't be necessary to link to the file when the image is used at that resolution. I am also doubting that the SVG file as a whole is copyrighted, but I am unaware of any court rulings on the originality of gradients and fonts, so it may be safer to keep the copyright tags there. There is also the issue of accessibility: the threshold of originality differs from country to country, and keeping the copyright tags there simplifies things for people who need to use the image in a country with a lower threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
All right then, thanks. I'll leave it at that. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 15:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

Should the warnings say "you may be blocked from editing" or "you will be blocked from editing"? George8211what did I break now? 20:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. This is not a matter of grammar at all. Both are grammatically correct. Your question goes above the layer of syntax, semantics and pragmatics all the way up to discourse analysis layer. But even then, IMHO, threatening, which is illegal all over the world, is ill-advised.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said, right up to the part where you suggest that threatening to block someone from a privately run website could possibly be a legal issue, which is ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I did not say "legal issue". I said "ill-advised". If adhering to the minimum of law was the goal, these templates would have never been created. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You said, "which is illegal all over the world". Legoktm (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, it should say "you may be blocked from editing", because nobody can guarantee that a block will take place. There are all sorts of reasons why blocks don't happen when they could, such as nobody notices the error in question; somebody does, but does not report it to administrators; somebody does that, but, for any one of a myriad of reasons, a reviewing administrator declines to act. (And of course Codename Lisa is quite right: this is nothing whatever to do with grammar.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I concur with may in both meanings: in terms of permission-to-block per policy, and probability-of-blocking by process&people. --Lexein (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I also concur with the use of may and not will. This is a question of correct semantics and not one of grammar. Unless reached by community consensus such as at WP:ANI or Arbcom, blocking is entirely at the discretion of admins and many may well consider that a block might not be necessary even in repeated instances of abuse. It depends very much on the circumstances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

uw-coi additional text

The documentation for this template reads: "{{subst:Uw-coi|Article|Additional text}} adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thank you" ". But the template doesn't actually do that; what it does is add the additional text after "Thank you", and italicises it. As far as the thank you is concerned, it'd probably be good if the documentation and the actual functioning were in agreement; but what are the italics for? Could this be modified to add the additional message in plain text? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've checked through {{uw-coi}} and it looks fine. I also added {{subst:uw-coi|Foo|You have been informed about this before}} to User talk:Sandbox for user warnings, and that also looks fine. Where have you seen a problem occur? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replying, Redrose64. I'm sorry that I somehow failed to notice that you had done so. The edit that caused me to post this was this one. I hope that the problem ("Thank you" is not removed; the comment is in italics) is clear from that diff; if not, I'll try to provide more that reproduce the result. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: OK, thanks; notice the position of the HTML comment <!-- Template:uw-coi --> in your diff - it's after the category and before the italicised text. Now consider the two tests in this edit and notice the position of the words "Additional text". In the first test, {{subst:uw-coi|Article|Additional text}} it takes the place of the worrds "Thank you.", but in the second, {{subst:uw-coi|Article}} Additional text it's just after the HTML comment <!-- Template:uw-coi --> - just as it is in your diff linked above. I can only conclude that the italicised text was also placed outside the {{subst:uw-coi}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking the trouble to reply. Your examples do not replicate the problem I have, but I don't know why not. The only explanation I can think of is that I use Twinkle to place such notices. Could this be a Twinkle problem? I tried {{uw-coi}}-warning myself, and the Twinkle preview clearly shows that (a) "Thank you." is not removed and (b) the additional text (mine was "blah blah blah") is italicised. So I tried it on the uw-sandbox. Please see this diff. Does that help? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: Your latest diff does have the italicised text after the HTML comment <!-- Template:uw-coi --> so it wasn't placed in the "Additional text" parameter of a {{subst:uw-coi|Article|Additional text}}. I don't use Twinkle myself: in fact I don't use any automated tools, preferring to make my own mistakes. But if you're certain that you didn't consciously add the italics, then they must be coming from Twinkle, so I suggest that you put a message on WT:TW pointing them to this thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's the conclusion I was coming to also. Many thanks for your input. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Level 1 warning for edits reverted by another user

Template:Uw-vandalism1 was changed after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings but now contains "that I undid", which is incorrect when warning for an edit has already been undone. There's Template:Uw-v1-h, but that was created as a version of the standard template with a header and just hasn't been updated. Does a separate template exist for this? Peter James (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. We have the beautiful Template:Uw-vandalism0. Cheers, Fylbecatulous talk 18:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Level 3 Icons

I saw some certain level 3 templates have ambox icon, and some ones have the Nuvola Apps icon, Can we explain why we have 2 different warning icons on level 3 templates

Ambox Icon on a level 3 template:

and the nuvola apps icon on :

Dreth 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I hadn't noticed before. I guess nobody else did. Maybe that's the whole reason: Similarity. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible template for IP which should be blocked, but there is little point

I'm looking for a template which says the following (but, hopefully, better expressed)

This IP has been used recently by a blocked editor. However, he's stopped using it (and gone on to another IP), so there is no point in blocking.

The blocked editor in question has never been associated with an editor login, so the sock puppet templates don't seem quite appropriate.

It may not be true that there is no point in blocking. I recall one which has had 6 (2-12 hour) uses by the same person (per WP:DUCK), and none by anyone else. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There's {{IPsock}}: Template:IPsock

Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That would work if there were an editor name to be associated with. However, I suppose {{IPsock}} could be edited to have the option of reporting a description rather than a name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Template backbone

Please see {{uw}} and Template:Uw-editsummary/sandbox, you can test this with your talk page by substituting. I think this backbone template is ready to simplify markup on every user notice template, it includes auto thanks and sign text and auto icon options. IMO we can use this template by default in such templates. Please comment! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand yet what you are proposing or how to use it or why... Can you elaborate on those? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 05:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@KDS4444:I have a complete example in Template:Uw-editsummary/sandbox. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll bite. Why does the markup need to be simplified? What exactly is this supposed to simplify and why complicate something that isn't broken? Can this be used with all of the user warning design guidelines for each different level of user warning template? - Aoidh (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Passive Tweaks on Level 1 warnings, what happened to the "I reverted"

I stumbled into Uw-test1 and some level1 warning templates that were redesigned in July/August 2012, How come they now have passive voice now. It would be better to just simply stick to the "I wanted to let you know I undid your edit because it could be bad" and not "Your edit was reverted because it was seen as bad". Dreth 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Good question. @Steven (WMF): ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. That's because not always the issuer of the message is the reverter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
New question, The majority of the people who warn are reverters themselves. And if passive voice is needed, we could always use uw-test2 for good faith. Dreth 01:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Right. Longstanding consensus is to use the active voice in the level 1 templates. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Guys, templates must be usable for all, not the majority. If the longstanding consensus has no reason backing it, so change it. But again, if there not enough people sending notices for the reverts of others and there is a reason behind using the active voice, who am I to mind?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe we can rewire the active voice level 1 warnings to include the passive voice, but still have the active voice kept as well, or maybe create the level1a templates for passive voice users.Dreth 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There's no "longstanding consensus" to use the active voice, even the RfC that initiated the change to the "I reverted it" wording (which was a few months ago, hardly longstanding) noted that the consensus was that these templates needed to be worked on further, so I don't see that there was ever much of a consensus other than a very few editors insisting that they thought it was better. - Aoidh (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Now. should we 'BOLDly change the level 1 back templates to active voice? Or require census? Dreth 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys. Just want to point out there is also {{uw-vandalism0}} if you need passive voice. As Dreth said above, the majority of reverters are also doing the warning themselves. Since comparative testing showed that using the active voice was better at retaining good faith people who'd made mistakes and driving away real vandals, I'd recommend we stick with the consensus from the previous 30 day RFC and have all the level 1 templates be active voice. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 03:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There was no such consensus for the active voice, as specifically noted by the closing admin's comments in the RfC. I get that pushing the active voice on the templates was your pet project, but don't continue to cite a consensus that wasn't there to justify a change rather than actually discussing the topic at hand. - Aoidh (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The active voice was one of the major changes, if not the major change. The closure was clearly that we should go with those versions and keep tweaking them. We have, as well as creating uw-vandalism0, but completely changing back from active to passive voice when all the objective evidence we have says that it doesn't work as well and isn't needed in the majority of cases makes no sense. By changing to passive voice we're designing the templates for an exception rather than the norm. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to the fact that any time anyone suggests a tweak of any kind, you try to stonewall any discussion by citing a consensus that doesn't support your claims. - Aoidh (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history of the most common level one templates, you'll see many edits since we implemented the RFC. Most of these are, in fact, small tweaks or technical changes. I'm only objecting to reverting back to the passive voice that was a main component of older versions. We spent six months carefully testing those core changes. We didn't change them on a whim or based solely on personal preference, and in the many iterations we tried, active voice was consistently more successful. Also: passive voice is terrible grammar. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 07:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Make template to require the article by default

Since notice without target article means I'm Talk page stalker we should make template to require the {{{article}}} by default. This can be done with {{error|Please specify a reference article}} which gives Please specify a reference article . --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean on templates like {{subst:uw-editsummary}}? There are cases where a user has edited several different pages without leaving an edit summary on any of them. If it's a general problem, it's better to leave the page name unspecified, since naming a particular one might convey the impression that only the edit to that one page lacked an edit summary, and that all the others were OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I posted this idea because I submited this without this parameter and this happened (clink this link and see talk). --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
No, the link that you have given is not your edit - it is an edit made by Lexein (talk · contribs), and consisted of a {{subst:unsigned|Rezonansowy|12:23, 4 January 2014}} followed by a {{tps}} and some text. The {{tps}} produces (talk page stalker) - I often use it myself, to denote that I'm replying to a question on a user talk page, even though I'm not the person to whom the question was directed. Your edit was this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Have you read his comment, that's why I propose to require this by default, can be filled with one or multiple articles. I personally agree with his comment. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with this proposal, for the reason which Redrose64 explained in his earlier reply. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, it can be filled with one or multiple articles and leaving it blank means:
(talk page stalker) Hey Rezonansowy, please link to specific diffs which illustrate specific problems. I agree that edit summaries should always be added, and that they should be concisely explanatory. Further, Preferences has an option to automatically encourage edit summary addition. Finally, any editor who hopes to become an administrator should have a consistent history of good WP:edit summaries, wikilinking applicable policy#sections where helpful. --Lexein (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The text that you have just copypasted inside a {{tq}} didn't come from any templates. It was hand-entered by Lexein (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. What you mean exactly? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be asking about the text (talk page stalker) Hey Rezonansowy, please link to specific diffs ... in connection with {{subst:uw-editsummary}}. I'm saying that the two are entirely separate. If you want to know why Lexein (talk · contribs) used that specific text, I can't answer that, and nor is it a question for this page. You should be asking Lexein directly. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lexein: could comment what do you think about this idea? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rezonansowy, {{tps}} means I'm the WP:Talk page stalker, not you. I was watching the page, saw your comment, and suggested that you add diffs (or link to the article) to illustrate the problem you're describing. In your original request, you didn't link or explain (or offer an example of) what a helpful edit summary might have been for that particular edit. I see that you later provided a link to the article which concerned you; that's very helpful.
  1. If you're suggesting that warning template code should display a red-text error message if an article link or diff isn't supplied, I disagree with that. This will break existing templates where used. Existing warning templates which have been on user Talk pages for weeks or years (but not {{subst}}ed) would now surprisingly and suddenly show error text in red, where there was none before.
  2. If you're suggesting that template doc language should more strongly encourage links for warnings, I agree (where warnings refer to single edits or a small number of edits).
  3. If you're suggesting that WP:Twinkle require a link before saving a manually created warning template, I'd only support changing Twinkle's Warn language from "Article link?" to "Article link(suggested)?". For now.
--Lexein (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (numbered & updated to clarify --16:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC))
As has already been pointed out, there are times when a message such as this refers to a number of edits, not to a specific edit, and there is absolutely no reason whatever why editors shouldn't use messages in this generic way, whether they are using Twinkle or not. It is not at all clear to me what would be the advantage of adding "(suggested)" to Twinkle's message would be, but in any case this is not the place to discuss proposals to change the working of Twinkle. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Where the template is intended to refer to all recent edits, I agree with you about links not being needed. That's not necessarily the only case being discussed here. When referring to a few or some edits, the template would, IMHO, still benefit from the addition of one or more links to example problem article(s) or edit(s).
WP:TIGERS. I prefaced my statements with "if". If Res meant #3, then we move discussion to Twinkle discussion area. I promise. Is that okay with you? --Lexein (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It would benefit, but it's certainly not required, not to the point where requiring it is at all beneficial. If there's any confusion they're more than welcome to ask and clarify; a discussion is never a bad thing. - Aoidh (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on template's style and some of its wording

I am not one to "tinker" with standardized template messages such template:uw-dab, but I am looking it over and am noticing a few things:

  • 1.) it has a LOT of bold and italicised text, some it also blue-linked, which makes it read like someone is a little histrionic. Perhaps this template could be toned down a little to look less like it is shouting?
  • 2.) the policy of including at least one any yet only one blue-link per DAB entry is lost in the wording here. I can see it, it's there, technically, but the way it is written it gets completely run over. I'd like to propose a small change to make this policy a wee bit clearer. The second item on the warning list and its sub-item might be better phrased thus:
  • Be sure to use one and only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
    • Do not add a non-navigable link ("red link") unless that term is used in an article"

It isn't much, but I think these small changes would make the template easier to understand and less confrontational while remaining assertive. Perhaps I can just make such changes myself (?) but I would rather get input from the community first. Anyone have any thoughts on these things? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This change looks pretty good. I think when half the template is in boldface like it was it takes away from the point of doing it at all, like writing a comment in all caps, people are less likely to pay attention to it. - Aoidh (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was thinking, Aoidh. If the volume goes up, people just become deaf. I turned the volume down a bit without turning it off altogether. Thanks for supporting my move on that front. KDS4444Talk 14:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, that is not the way it struck me at all. I saw the use of bold text as helping to mark out the particular points which were most in need of taking notice of, making it easier to see the essential points. I don't see it at all as having a similar "shouting" effect as writing a comment all in capitals. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Watson. I think some things do need the emphasis. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
When half the template has emphasis, there's no benefit in that, why have emphasis at all? There is a difference between "some things" and "almost all of it". Having half of your comment in bold isn't much better than having it in ALL CAPS...it's distracting from the actual message, at best. - Aoidh (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you provide a before and after version right here, demonstrating what you're proposing? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, seeing as how a before and after are both already found in the discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about links to different versions, but actually physically placing them here so we can look at them and compare them. That would make your point much easier to understand and deal with. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Slow edit warring

Proposed addition:

  • Note that slow edit warring (not violating 3rr, but repeatedly returning to make the same disputed edit over longer time) is just as much a violation as doing it all at once. Discuss the matter on the talk page, rather than attempting to force your version.

What think ye? Any tweaking to improve it would be appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

To which template? There's three different edit-warring templates: Template:uw-3rr, Template:uw-ew, and Template:uw-ewsoft. - Aoidh (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The first one (Template:uw-3rr). -- Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd like more input before installing this wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I feel like the 3rr template should specifically focus on 3rr, and that uw-ew is for non-3rr edit-warring which would include edit warring over a longer period of time. Maybe on Template:Uw-ew add something to the end of "editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts" to note this. - Aoidh (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually you bring up a good point, which also highlights a problem: why have both templates? uw-ew mentions "three reverts" without mentioning what it is or its background. That's very poor writing, just as using a pronoun for a specific person before (or without) ever mentioning that person by name is wrong. I don't see any reason why we can't combine them and end up with only one template. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Because the 3rr template focuses on 3rr, the uw-ew template focuses on just edit-warring, not 3rr but others (such as "slow edit warring"). It doesn't make sense to template someone telling them not to make more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period when what they've been doing is slowly edit warring over a period of days or more, because then they're just likely to dismiss the template as inaccurate and continue to edit war. I do think the uw-ew template might do with some cleaning up, but I don't think combining them is beneficial. - Aoidh (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal

I would like to invite this group to the discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Neutral Editors.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Uw-ublock

This template contains "A username should not be ... related to a "real-world" group or organization..." Could someone please link me to the section of policy that supports this assertion? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:ISU is presumably the place that says what's allowed & what isn't. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
And WP:CORPNAME to a degree. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Uw-ublock is wrong. A name can be related to a real-world organization. User:John at Example Corp is okay, as is User:Microsoft's Biggest Fan. However, there are restrictions. Both User:Microsoft and User:Microsoft Marketing Department are unacceptable.
But the question of what to do remains: Can that nuance can be explained briefly? (Maybe no?) In practice, is it worth fixing? (Probably yes?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
How about A username should not be ... easily confused as being a real-world group or organization, or being endorsed or represent them.? —EncMstr (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What does this template do??

The first thing you want to read when entering a template page is what the template does. This template page fails in quickly telling the user what the template does or what function it has. The page should begin with something like "This template is used to ...", or "Making the text included in the template ...". —Kri (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of templates share this talk page. Which template are you referring to? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I see you got here before me. :) I was just gonna write I had noticed that this talk page was not specific to the template I was talking about. Funny, since I was at the template page when I clicked the talk page tab, I thought that would take you to the talk page of the Wikipedia page you were on? Anyway, the template I was talking about was Template:Uw-italicize. —Kri (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The WP page explaining the overall purpose of user warning templates, which include {{uw-italicize}}, is here. It Is Me Here t / c 11:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Uw-editsummary

Some editors are leaving edit summaries like "I made some changes", "I corrected some errors", etc.; these are no more helpful than no summary at all. Earlier today I was bold and added "Avoid vagueness" to Help: Edit summaries (see this diff). If that change to H:ES survives, I propose a corresponding addition to the Uw-editsummary template, suggesting that an edit summary needs to actually inform other editors as to what changes were made. Thank you for your consideration. Jeh (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Db-attack-notice

Can Template:Db-attack-notice be changed to link to the page that has been nominated for speedy deletion, like Template:Afd-notice does? This way the person warned knows what it is in reference to and confusion such as this might be avoided: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=597989450. Holdek (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Holdek: Hey Holdek. We purposely leave that functionality out of this and related templates where the reverted edit is often defamatory and so we want to minimize its view. Please see this discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. But, how about making it closer to level 1 than level 4? This could help in situations where the page was made in good faith. Holdek (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You mean you want this template to be much more timid? I think we need to be quite firm in this area and the template is currently that, but also polite. Anyway, let's not talk in the hypothetical. Is there some specific language change you have in mind?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing a coi template

Hi. I was tagged in December of 2012 with a coi template for some reason. It bothers me that it is on my talk page. I have not talked to the person who placed it but I looked at his talk page and have the impression he is zealous about tagging people and removing external links. Can I delete the tag from my talk page? Thanks. Jim Derby (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You can remove anything you want from your user talk page (though it's recommended that you archive it rather than just remove it), with the exception of notices regarding active sanctions (mainly blocks). Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Inaccessible signature notice?

I've been finding myself coming across more and more users with sigs that pretty clearly fail WP:CONTRAST, sometimes to the point that even I can't read them despite having no color vision problems. Would there be interest in a single issue notice template, particularly since WP:SIGAPP is now policy, to inform users that they may want to reconsider their current signatures? I get the feeling this isn't the "request a template" department, but I'm not sure where else to go, nor what standards I'd need to conform to in order to create one myself. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss the need for a template, also to suggest the wording and layout. Design considerations are at WP:UWDG but are also discussed here. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case I think a template with this rough wording would be a good idea:

Hello [user]. I wanted to let you know that your signature may be difficult to read for other users, especially those with vision problems. Specifically, colors used in signatures should not be too similar to the background color, per WP:SIGAPP. You may find that WP:CONTRAST provides some guidance as to how to pick more accessible colors for signatures. Thank you! (signature)

Any thoughts on that? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Could the message be made more generic, to apply to signatures that are hard to read in ways other than low contrast? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I was actually thinking a parameter could select the reason for why the sig is problematic, or from a list of reasons. Like color=1 gives a blurb about color contrast, symbol=1 gives a blurb about using non-ASCII or symbol characters excessively or in a confusing manner (e.g., substituting § for "s", or most leet substitutions), diffname=1 gives a blurb about having a sig that's drastically different from your username, size=1 gives a blurb about font size or similar. My main concern is that the low contrast issue is kind of a niche one that many users might not be able to figure out just by saying "your sig is hard to read, please follow policy" without giving as specific a reason as possible. Since I'd like to see this work as a notice rather than a warning, I think it should provide concrete advice on how to adequately fix the issue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussions on {{uw-coi}}

The section "Be cautious about deletion discussions" in {{uw-coi}} bothers me. It seems to violate WP:AGF by accuse the recipient of the message of behavior they have likely never behaved in, since most COI editors engage in article creation or edit the articles directly related to their conflict. It also seems to violate WP:BEANS.

I recommend removing this text from the template; we could add another more specialized template if it is needed for this specific behavior. If I don't see a response here, I'll go ahead and make the change. Vectro (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Odd wording at {{Uw-multipleIPs}}

The problem with using multiple ips is much broader than just vandalism. Even gf editors who ip hop create problems of inadvertent socking and they are often unresponsive to talk messages, having hopped on to a new ip. Users of multiple stable ips are a bit easier to work with, but still problematic. The wording should not assume vandalism to be the problem. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"This is your last warning", when not really the last warning, makes us appear weak

{{uw4}} and the level-4 user warning templates tend to start with "This is your last warning." But, as User:A. B. points out,[3] some users have gotten multiple "last warnings" not yet followed by any block.

Threatening "this is your last warning", without actually following through, makes us sound weak and makes all our threats sound empty.

Therefore, I propose that we should change the phrase "This is your last warning." to something equally threatening but which is less binding upon us. I suggest replacing the whole phrase with a simple "Beware."

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I wish there were some kind of trigger in the level-3 warning that alerted interested admins, who could then issue the level-4 warning, and then follow thru with a block. If that isn't going to happen, then the wording should be changed. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Worse than no warning at all. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It might be better just to remove the "this is your last warning" entirely without replacing it. Template:uw-vand4 for example would then just say "The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." short and simple and accurate. In this case I think less is more. - Aoidh (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Good wording. Give it a try. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well the problem is that the wording at Template:uw-vand4 seems to be transcluded from Template:uw4, which is full-protected (and I don't have the template editor user permission) - Aoidh (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
However, here is the sandbox version for uw4 and this is what it looks like applied to uw-vand4 (with test cases. Does anyone see any issues with that change? - Aoidh (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It looks like an improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, though it is very similar to the level 3 template.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Aoidh's version is a great improvement over the original "This is your last warning." But I still prefer the idea of adding "Beware." I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because "Beware" makes the warning sound more threatening. —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I can definitely see the issue, but at the same time, "Last warning" sends a stronger message then just that you may be blocked if you continue. Part of the problem is that there are some editors who are a bit trigger happy with level 4 warnings. Anecdotally it does seem that the last warning messages are actually more effective in stopping vandalism, although I can't provide stats on it. Even if the person issuing the warning isn't in a position to make good on it, we should consider further whether we really want to weaken the message. Monty845 23:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
How about "This is it" or "You are now on notice" or "Your edits are now being monitored"? —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Better to avoid "Your edits are now being monitored", or anything that similarly evokes an exciting game of cat and mouse between the internet cops and the crafty vandal. Better to keep things as boring as possible, never alluding to Wikipedians. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Or possibly rewording it to say "You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia"? That way it brings the important part to the beginning, but it keeps it as factually accurate as possible, in the event that someone else is a little to eager with the templates. However, looking at that I agree it takes away from it a bit to remove the "This is your last warning" bit. Is there a way to keep that emphasis without actually saying "last warning"? Words like "beware" and "now on notice" don't do it, I think. - Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Little problem here. I sometimes block just after a 'last warning' - if someone's busy vandalising I'm not going to wait around waiting for the next one. But it looks a bit odd to block someone when they haven't edited after the last warning. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Even with the current wording though that's an issue. The current wording does seem problematic in some ways but better in others, and given how often Template:uw4 is used I think it should be discussed thoroughly before being changed. Should we open an RfC and try to figure out a better wording? - Aoidh (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
How about this: Don't leave a uw4 without reporting the user to ANV. Jeh (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't really seem to solve anything, as it doesn't prevent others from giving additional "last warnings". - Aoidh (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't "prevent", no, but if the convention was that a uw4 means an ANV report it might reduce the number of duplicate "lasts". Jeh (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the fact of open editing, IPs will often have multiple level 4 warnings on the talk pages for infractions committed by different people. As such, "You may be blocked from editing without further warning" seems to be the best wording to me. I don't like making threats I know may not be backed up, and even an ANV is no guarantee a block will be issued. - BilCat (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

BilCat: I'm very much a new contributor here, but fwiw, I like that phraseology a great deal. An independent question: Is there a way that the template can automatically suggest, to the editor who leaves a uw4, that they make an ANV report? I'm sure TW could do so (I imagine that TW could have an option to actually create the ANV report) but of course not all uw4's are left with the aid of TW. Jeh (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just copied User:Aoidh's wording from above, just to be clear what wording I was supporting. :) As to suggesting that the editor who leaves a uw4, that they make an ANV report, I rarely ever file such reports. I've found it's next to useless to do so, and several uw4 warnings are usually sufficient to bring it to an admin's attention. If a bot could automatically file an ANV report on behalf of a user who added a uw4, that might be useful, but it may problematic for other reasons. - BilCat (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
So is there any objection to making this change, to make the template say "You may be blocked from editing without further warning"? - Aoidh (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
"...without further notice" would be a more conventional English phrasing, but either way, I support the proposed change. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I actually like "without further notice" a lot better, it sounds more natural. - Aoidh (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we should keep "warning", as that's more threatening, and in keeping with the seriousness of a level 4 warning. As noted above, the point is to send a strong message to the user. - BilCat (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, is there an administrator or template editor that can change the wording to "You may be blocked from editing without further warning"? - Aoidh (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Which template exactly? (In the future, use {{edit template-protected}} to get our attention). Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: Sorry, it's Template:uw4, removing the "This is your last warning..." bit and replacing all of it with the above wording. - Aoidh (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User warning for inaccessible sigs

I have created a level one warning template, {{Uw-sigdesign1}}, which reads:

Information icon Hello, I'm [Username]. I wanted to let you know that your signature ("sig") design might cause problems for some readers. This is because of low colour contrast, an unreadable font, or suchlike. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising sigs. Thank you.

where "of low colour contrast, an unreadable font, or suchlike" can be replaced by |1= and "Thank you" by |2=.

I invite comment about its content and deployment, including the possibility of using it in twinkle, on its talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 13:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Need for this?

Moved from Template talk:Uw-sigdesign
 – (See revision 605498098. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one who can't see any need for this? Famously Sharp (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oo. Just noticed that the above sig looks different today. Reason: last time that I looked at it, it was with Firefox 3.6 - now I'm looking with FF 28.0 --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good start

Moved from Template talk:Uw-sigdesign
 – (See revision 605498098. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this. I definitely think it should be in Twinkle under the "single issue notices" section (rather than warnings). Couple of points:

  • Change "suchlike" to "similar" or "a similar issue"; "suchlike" isn't used at all in American English as far as I've ever seen.
  • I think that WP:CONTRAST should be directly linked to if possible since it provides much more practical advice on fixing a sig than WP:SIGAPP does. But of course it's of limited applicability if contrast isn't the issue.
  • An example of what a color contrast issue is might be helpful (it might not be intuitive to all) but I think that might be worth leaving out in the name of brevity.

Otherwise I think this is pretty good. Thank you again for creating it! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Substituting parser functions

I think the parser functions in Template:Uw should be substituted. This template should be substituted, but WP:SUBST#Templates that should not be substituted states that templates with parser functions should not. I've created a version in Template:Uw/sandbox that does this. Anon126 (please ping!-talk-contribs) 18:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and done it, since no one seems to be interested. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

New version of the {{Uw-spamublock}} template.

@FT2: I just noticed that a new version of this template was made and i took the liberty of boldly reverting the changes that where made, mentioning i would explain the reason for doing so over here. There are a few concerns i have in regards to these changes that were made to the template:

  • How much is too much? The old version was already a rather long read but the addition of another few paragraphs of text pushes it straight in TL;DR area for me. Aside from the textual additions the added spacing beneath the headers increases the templates length even more. The new version is actually so large that it requires scrolling on a laptop screen see and read it entirely.
  • The new formatting is distracting: The old version used a few bold headers and one italicized line which is fine. The new version used bold headers, italics, bolded words, red text and bold underlined text throughout the template which makes it difficult to focus on the text or actually read it.

I understand the intent of the change was to make the template easier to understand and read, but i don't think adding more explanation to the template actually accomplished this. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, and thanks for the ping. The changes break down into three paragraphs - other than those it's not much difference in length:
Original Added
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully. Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username or edits suggest that you are editing for publicity and/or promotional purposes, or on behalf of a company or other organization. For example:
  1. Promotional editing - your username may suggest that you intend to edit on behalf of a company, group, website or organization, or for purposes of promotion and/or publicity; or
  2. Spam editing - your edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: using Wikipedia for promotion, posting advertisements, and adding inappropriate external links; or
  3. Inappropriate username - your username may not comply with our username policy: an account and its username must be the edits of one individual person, and you may not edit with a username that is inappropriate, or suggests that multiple people or a whole organization will use (or share) it.

Wikipedia is not a means of promotion and your account mustn't be shared with other people. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, or your edits are not intended as promotional, you may be allowed to edit, but you will have to change your username first, and comply with our key editing policies.

 
I want to make a correction or improvement, or fix something, or there's a problem in an article

We will always take seriously, reader reports about possible unlawful content, defamation, minors at risk, copyright violation (and permission to use copyrighted media on Wikipedia), article corrections, and privacy breach. If these are all you need, you can contact a suitable volunteer team here, or for emergency removal of privacy, defamation or copyright violating content see here.

If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following: If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, or you believe your editing will improve our articles, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it and that your edits will make a real improvement in some area of coverage, or fix some real problem (however minor), and are not just promotional. If the reason is genuine and sincere, or the block was due to a genuine misunderstanding of our requirements, you may be allowed another chance. You will also need to rename your account to meet our username policy. We will only consider requests to change an article if the changes meet our site policies. As a simple guide, requests of a promotional nature are almost always refused, but genuine errors, omissions, unbalanced and non-neutral coverage, outdated facts, substandard coverage of a living person, genuine intent to edit appropriately, and genuine improvements to our pages and content – even if minor – may sometimes be accepted if other editors agree with you:
  • The first addition ensures we clearly state up-front, the actual reasons for blocking. While "promotion" seems a "reason" for Wikipedians, it actually isn't clear what the jargon word means, to good-faith newcomers. It doesn't give well defined reasons or a sense of what triggered it ("appears to be promotional" is clear to us, but often users see this as improving/correcting, not promoting, so they may feel bitten and upset). Stating exact behaviors and not Wikipedia-universe jargon helps newcomers understand quicker, more clearly and feel better that there is a reason for it. We already expand on these later, so it's better to group all explanations of "what you may have done wrong" into the 1st section where a user immediately looks for the key points, and it also simplifies the rest.
  • The second addition is because there's a key omission here. Sometimes users are genuinely but cluelessly trying to fix a real problem. Blocked users may be trying to correct what they see as an error, or a defaming comment, in their business' article or about themselves. For example they get told by someone that an attacker has written something, or see a law case or tabloid comment has gained undue WEIGHT so they create an account to try and "put it right", then get blocked. The original just says very negatively "you are blocked and probably can't edit". It doesn't help good faith clueless newcomers, . Blocked users with a concern can then feel forced by our block, to try and fix it other ways, such as creating new accounts, gaining a sock ban and further problems, etc - we don't need any of that. It's important to be clear that even if blocked, any concern about defamation, copyvio, or other significant matter, can be passed to us regardless. ("Q: Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?" - A: Probably not.)
  • The third edit is probably too long, but reflects that a user really does need to know what to do, and may not know Wikipedia at all. Someone reading "What can I do now?" is also prepared to read a little more, and needs the basics beyond "fill this in and explain that" - they need a sense what's accepted, what isn't. The wording states only that they need to "convince an administrator" (sounds daunting, doesn't it) that they "mean it" (what exactly?), with no sense of AGF if there's been a good faith error. A clearer dividing line really helps users who don't know Wikipedia: - "if you believe your changes will really fix a problem, or improve coverage of other topics, and you seem sincere in understanding what went wrong, or there's a genuine misunderstanding, then you might get another chance, but if you just want to add promotional material (as described above) then you probably won't". That kind of summary is so useful to a blocked user. But the template doesn't really say it.
Experience with blocked COI users at OTRS makes me think that they generally prefer to understand what's up, even if it is longer, provided it is clearly explained, over a short notice that leaves confusion and stress. The context is the blocked user who is shocked or upset, but still wants to meet their (perhaps legitimate) needs, not the Wikipedian who knows all about WP:NOT and WP:COI. For blocked COI newcomers, often a good cogent AGF explanation saves immense upset, ill-will, recourses to legal/OTRS, socking they never intended to misuse but didn't know better, etc. When it's pure promotion, we say "no", but where it's good faith and there might be good faith but clueless newcomer conduct, we need to do better.
I accept it's got too long. I'd be open to condensing the above via discussion. But for a user facing this block, I feel strongly that some effort is needed to address these issues, since users blocked with this template may sometimes have good intentions or genuine reason to try and edit, and deserve a notice that makes clearer these points so they understand our concerns better. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@FT2: I am probably not the person to talk to for suggestions in regards to writing brilliant template prose, but here are my thoughts on the above and the template:
  • I have always deemed the first two sections of the template (The short introduction and the "Why can't I edit Wikipedia?") the best parts of the current template. The intro immediately conveys the core message ("You have been blocked") alongside a one line explanation why ("Using Wikipedia for publicity and/or promotional purposes"). The section section subsequently elaborates on the "Promotional editing" part by providing multiple links to examples of "Promotional behavior".
The new template text for this section seems to suggest that the reason for the block is an OR scenario (Promotional editing OR Spam editing OR Inappropriate username). However, {{Uw-spamublock}} should only be used in cases where the user has an unacceptable username AND uses the account for advertising. If an editor is advertising / spamming utilizing a non problematic username {{Uw-soablock}} or {{Uw-adblock}} should be used. If an editor has an inappropriate username but seems to be editing in good faith {{Uw-softerblock}} should be used. Due to this the "For Example" part of the template is somewhat odd. The "Promotional editing" and "Inappropriate username" part both seem to describe username related issues, yet the OR statement after "Promotional editing" seems to suggest that a block may be handed out for having a conflict of interest. While we strongly discourage COI editing it is not a grounds for an immediate block.
  • The addition of the "I want to make a correction or improvement, or fix something, or there's a problem in an article" is something i agree with. However, i would suggest merging that in the current "Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?". As mentioned i am not a hero with template prose but it might be an idea to intertwine this with the "neutral point of view" mention in this section (Eg, something like 'Wikipedia maintains a strict policy that article's should be written in neutral and unbiased point of view. If you believe your edits were neutral and unbiased, or believe you were fixing an issues related to the article's neutrality... (etc etc etc) )
  • As for the last section: Consider the line "If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, or you believe your editing will improve our articles, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it and that your edits will make a real improvement in some area of coverage, or fix some real problem (however minor), and are not just promotional.". I know the line is intended to be friendly but it ends up being flowery instead. Just try reading the entire line out loud in one go - i think you will notice what i mean . Aside from the length part of it is also somewhat superfluous: If i misunderstood the requirements, wouldn't my unblock rationale be inherently genuine and sincere? And isn't fixing a real problem a real improvement as well? If i were to rephrase it i would probably state something along the lines of: "If your future are beneficial to Wikipedia as opposed to being promotional your account may be unblocked upon request".
My second concern is that the text feels somewhat incoherent. We start off explaining the editor needs to convince an administrator they had no bad intent and need to improve. The next line is a one liner stating the need to change a username. Afterwards we suddenly jumps to a line claiming that we will only consider (article) change requests in accordance to the site policies (What article change? Weren't we talking about an an unblock and a username issue?). After that there is another long explanation what edits will and won't be accepted, adding a statement that they may be accepted if other editors agree (What other editors? Who are they?). After we read that there is suddenly a step by step guide telling the editor exactly what to do - but by doing so it overlaps with the section above it.
I happily agree the template could use a friendliness pass and some fleshing out in area's that lack explanation but it really shouldn't grow much larger or be extended beyond some clarification. I've always considered a block template a means to tell an editor they are blocked, why they are blocked and what they can do. Any extended explanations regarding policies can - in my humble opinion - better be linked from the block template instead. As examples i would mention the Business FAQ and the Guide to appealing blocks both contain a lot of useful information for blocked editors and by linking them we provide that information without derailing the unblock template into an "Introduction to Wikipedia". Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Apologies if anything is blunt, unclear or grammatically incorrect. I lacked the time to proofread the above once done.

Template:Uw-1rrMac

The template: {{Uw-1rrMac}} seems to have the tildes to generate the signature within it, however when using it just now, my signature did not generate.[4][5] -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't subst: cleanly; in particular, it leaves the {{uw}} template as a transclusion, instead of propagating the subst: to that as well. This means that Template:4~ (which generates the tildes) is not seen as {{subst:4~}} but as {{4~}} resulting in a further non-substituted transclusion, and so the tildes are not actually present to be expanded. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
fixed by substituting {{uw}} Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

what does "→"mean in some templates?

What does "→"mean in some templates? 117.79.232.182 (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Which ones? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It means the template has been deprecated and redirected. Bellerophon talk to me 13:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Misleading documentation

The documentation for {{subst:Uw-soablock}} suggests that |anon= and |time= are valid parameters - in fact they are ignored. Redrose64 (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know why the template ignores the time and anon parameters? Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Anyone? Bueller? Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Parsecboy:: There are a few "Why's" that have different answers here.
  • Why are the parameters ignored: If you look at, for example, {{Uw-vblock}} source you will notice it accepts "Time" and "Anon" as parameters in its definition. {{Uw-soablock}} on the other hand doesn't have there parameters defined.
  • Why does the documentation say they are valid: A lot of templates use one single documentation template - {{uw-block/doc}} to be precise. This template bases the displayed message on the block template's page name. There is not specific entry for {{Uw-soablock}} though, which causes it to display the default messages (Which includes the time and anon parameter.
  • Why aren't there parameters actually in the template No idea on that account. The template was last edited in 2012, and most edits were made around 2010. Perhaps no-one decided to update it?
I guess it should be relatively simple to fix though, if we wanted to do that. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. There is Template:Uw-adblock, but as far as I know there isn't a temporary block notice for spammers (I came here by way of an IP that was spamming that I blocked, btw). I'm not a knowledgeable about coding - if it's not a difficult fix, are there any downsides I'm not aware of? Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to level 1 warnings?

I think it's important to emphasize in level one warnings that reverted content isn't actually deleted, it's simply currently not visible, and that it's possible to put back the text- in particular, change uw-unsourced1 to read "Hello, I'm Jimbo. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! The edits are not lost, they're simply not visible to the public currently and can be easily reinstated. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you." or something like that. Thanks. Just an idea. --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, OK. Since no one has objected in over two weeks, I will be WP:BOLD and do it myself. Thanks, Lixxx235Got a complaint? 15:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Uw-notenglish should allow a language to be specified

{{Uw-notenglish}} should allow a language to be specified in the same way that {{not English}} does. If a language is specified, the output could be something like (for French, as an example):

Information icon Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is written in French. We invite you to translate it into English. Pages in foreign languages will not be kept here, and may be deleted if they are not translated into English. If it is intended for readers from the French language community, it should be contributed to the French Wikipedia. See the list of Wikipedias. Thank you.

This would allow an easy way to point editors to the correct wikipedia if there isn't an appropriate non-english welcome template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A query from AfC

An IP has been very insistent about the creation of Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/uw-disruptive4im. Because there was no mention of a need for this template we initially declined it. However, they continue to pose it for review so I felt it necessary to ask here if someone would vouch for a need for the template. hewhoamareismyself 18:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If the disruptive behaviour is so unacceptable as to justify going straight in at level 4, rather than escalating from an initial level 1 or level 2, it's unlikely to be general disruption, so we would serve one of the specific notices like {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} {{subst:uw-delete4im}} {{subst:uw-image4im}} {{subst:uw-joke4im}} {{subst:uw-own4im}} {{subst:uw-upload4im}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

English

Can Template:Uw-english be used also in the case if a user contributes in a non-English language in an article? BenYes? 16:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

MFD removal warning

Hi. We have the uw-AFDx series of warnings for editors who remove AFD templates from article. We also have one for CFD. But we do not have a series for warning editors when MFD templates are removed. Can we get a series for these?

Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Uw-agf-sock

On the page WP:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Single-level_templates the Template:Uw-agf-sock syntax is given as

{{subst:uw-agf-sock|article}}

I think this is an error as neither WP:Template messages/User talk namespace (wp:UTM) or the actual template page show an 'article' parameter. Also it appears to have no effect on the templates wording on the page. --220 of Borg 21:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Update the UW-COI template language to reflect the Terms of Use?

Can the template be updated to reflect the updated Terms of use [6] subsection "Paid contributions without disclosure"?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Show a link to the diff when a page is included?

Hello, template editors!

I would like it if there was a link to the diff next to the page name if it is included, so admins and others can more easily verify what was changed by the warned/blocked user. Also I would also like a direct link to the page history.

Do it like this: <page name>(diff | hist)

Where the <page name> is a link to the page, diff is a link to the page difference comparator with the old id the admin provided and the edit immediately before. I forgot to mention that if no old id is provided, we could get the edit right before the current one, or we can get the name of the user and show the latest revision made by that user.

Without the diff and hist links, it feels like living in a dead end while taking bad guys down.

If this is not possible via normal template syntax, can you make sure that it still supports substitution? I would also like you to do this on other user warning templates like Uw-vandalism1 or similar templates when it provides a page the user violated the policies in, please?

Thank you. DSCrowned (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, the popup tool may do what you want. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Include a section heading

I would suggest that this template should include a section heading. Many of the other user warning templates automatically add a heading, usually like "July 2014". This should be the case for this template as well. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: What is "this template"? This talk page is shared by several hundred templates, so we have no idea which one you are thinking of.
Anyway, I've never noticed a date heading being added automatically by one of the uw- series of templates; please give examples of some that do include a heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Aww man, one of these template talk page? Well, I was thinking {{Uw-spamublock}} but it could apply to any of them. I've seen several templated messages that always have a heading of "February 2013" or whenever it was posted, but I'm not sure if those were user warnings or not. I think it would be a good idea for all of these templates to have that heading - otherwise the user talk pages don't flow well like [7] (I have since added the missing headings) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be {{Uw-username}}. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
{{subst:uw-spamublock}} is one of a group of templates that inform a user that they have been blocked. Blocks usually happen after at least one warning - sometimes as many as four, so the block notice should go in the same section as the warnings that led up to the block; therefore, {{subst:uw-spamublock}} shouldn't generate its own heading.
{{subst:uw-username}} is a single-level warning, not part of an escalating sequence; it also doesn't generate a heading; but it would typically follow one of the {{subst:welcome}} templates, some of which do generate headings.
Advice on headings may be found at WP:UWLS#Layout. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
uw-username should not appear under the welcome screen. It's not part of the welcome, but a completely separate topic. Also, the reality is, usually the new page editor nominates a spam page they made for speedy delete, and then after that they look at what user made it and then they notice the improper username. The example I linked to above had the welcome, two speedy delete headings, then the username and username block templates without headings. So, your statement is wrong; it usually does not follow a welcome template, and even if it did, it should still have its own heading. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
My second part of this is a simple question: Is there anything wrong with having a heading? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Spam warnings

Are there spam warnings for spam activities that are not external links? Like when a user keep creating spam articles? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there's the uw-advert series of user warnings, which can also be used through Twinkle. - Aoidh (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Update

Would it be possible or admirable to update the warning to include the request to retract the legal threat else be blocked? Tutelary (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the relevant guideline?

Where can I find the guideline and/or policy that pertains to giving template warnings? Harmelodix (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Harmelodix: On the main page for this talk page, at the top, you'll find a row of blue tabs. The second, marked Usage and layout, is probably what you're looking for. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, but I don't think that's an actual Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, as it would be in the Wikipedia namespace. Harmelodix (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 August 2014

Please change the deprecated usage of "Image:" to "File:". Dustin (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Dustin (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It's not deprecated; it's a permitted alias. Also, WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
See WP:IMAGE: That quite clearly states that it is deprecated. Dustin (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not shown as deprecated at Wikipedia:Namespace or at Help:Files, which says "the prefix Image: can be used instead of File: in links ... (see WP:namespace#Aliases)". "Deprecated" doesn't mean "you need to eliminate this wherever it is used", it means "you should not add new instances". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: The thing is, this is a template used by {{Uw-vandalism4im}}, and that template is substituted. In not changing this, you may as well be adding a new instance every single time this is substituted. It's not the end of the world to leave it as is, I just was saying what I thought ought to be done. Dustin (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Documentation issues

So, I have issues with the documentation pages for this series. For one thing, it is impossible to edit unless you are an expert template editor. An "edit" link does not appear on the documentation, which makes me wonder if you've fully-protected the documentation page for some reason. The edit I would make, if I could, would be to the documentation for {{uw-spam}}, to add a see also link to {{uw-advert}}. In fact, both pages should have the text "Use {{uw-spam}} for inappropriate external links. Use {{uw-advert}} for other advertising content". Again, I have no idea how to do this. Should I put an edit-protected on this question? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no regular /doc page for the documentation of {{subst:uw-spam}}. Instead, the documentation is generated by {{Templatesnotice/inner}} via {{Templatesnotice}} and neither of these is protected. However, these doc-generating templates are shared by many of the user warning template series, so making a change that is specific to {{subst:uw-spam}} would probably affect all of the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
So is it possible? Could Templatesnotices be modified to allow the inclusion of a see also template? I doubt that uw-spam and uw-advert are the only ones that need to link to a very similar template. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Uw-coi doc is wrong

I would just fix this but I'm a little out of my element here. The doc for Template:Uw-coi talks about a "Reason" parameter, but if you actually put something in there, it gets used (and linked) as an article title. So I think the doc should say {{subst:Uw-coi|Article}}. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: The template has always used the first positional parameter to link to an article. The documentation used to agree with that, but was changed to "Reason" a few months ago; I've traced the change to this edit by Mlpearc (talk · contribs). I don't know why that was done. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what happened, I was working on uniformity with similar doc pages, anyway I reverted my changes. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mlpearc: You didn't; it's now a worse mess. Some of the documentation now appears twice, inside and outside the green box; and some of that still refers to the "Reason" parameter described above. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
As you can see, in the page history, I reverted my changes, I'm not sure what has caused these errors with the subsequent edits. Still looking for a fix, if anyone has more savvy, please jump in. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
What I see from the page history is that at 19:09, 4 April 2014‎ you added 12 bytes; then at 19:37, 4 April 2014 you added 2,171. There were then four edits by other people, none of which added content: the total removal was 281+35+12=328 bytes. Then at 20:33, 12 August 2014‎ you removed 119 bytes. No way was that last edit a revert of the one that added 2,171 bytes. I've reverted to the prior version, which was at least clean. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(or recently deceased)

What is the point of the parenthetical "(or recently deceased)" note recently added to the warning? Was there a consensus to add this? I believe that the notice is unduly formal, and makes the good-faith warning more like an annoying template. Pinging the adder of the note: Wackyike Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Which warning template are you referring to? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think he's referring to {{uw-biog1}} and {{uw-biog2}}. I'm not a big fan of the change either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is those templates. I didn't realize that this was a combined page. Piguy101 (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd imagine it has something with do with WP:BDP and Robin Williams. If it isn't appropriate to add it into the biog templates, perhaps we can create a template that is specifically for the recently deceased and how BLP is covered. - Aoidh (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Did I do something wrong? Recently deceased people are covered by the BLP policy.Wackyike (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
They are indeed, though adding that might not be relevant for most BLP articles. I've created a test template here to see if maybe we need one specifically for BDP-related articles as it could explain in more detail why recent deaths are still covered under BLP, but if it's not necessary we can delete that and add a mention in uw-biog. But I feel like BDP should be explained in more detail than the uw-biog templates should cover, if Talk:Robin Williams is any indication. - Aoidh (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
To note, I was not referring to Robin Williams, as the addition of (or recently deceased) was added in July 2014: [8], but I suppose the article would be covered with the template. I simply feel as though the addition would apply to very few circumstances, and (quoting myself) "makes the good-faith warning more like an annoying template," so I think it should be removed. Piguy101 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason I added (or recently deceased) to those templates was that BLP violations can happen on recently deceased people articles and there is no other template that would've been appropriate for those instances. I still don't understand what is wrong with those edits I made.Wackyike (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Wackyike: Isn't {{Uw-vandalism}} still appropriate (but less specific) in those cases? π♂101 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Piguy101: No, because the strict BLP policy still covers recently deceased people in some cases. BLP violations are not necessarily vandalism.Wackyike (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Making uw messages look personalized

I edited {{uw-unsourced}} yesterday to remove the icon. Why? It's needless and rather pointless decoration, it makes the message look formal rather than friendly, it looks official rather than personal, and it signals "I dropped an official warning message on you" rather than "I'm leaving you a note, one regular person to another". Research (including, but not limited to, m:Research:The Rise and Decline) shows that reverting new users and leaving an impersonal uw template on their talk pages are reliable methods of driving away good-faith newcomers, and pages like WP:DTTR suggest that they irritate a significant proportion of established editors. That body of research is one of the reasons that we've gone to all that trouble to re-write the text of the messages to be friendly.

So why do we include these unfriendly, impersonal images on uw templates for good-faith errors? The inclusion of icons or images is not mandated by Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Design guidelines. At the uw-1 (info icon) level, they're not useful; we don't need special attention paid to a note about adding sources, and, unlike a uw-3 or uw-4 warning, we really don't need an icon to visually attract attention from the next editor. The worse-case scenario is that two different editors would add identical messages about the need to add sources, or whatever the problem is. (Scripts like Twinkle will still automatically detect them.)

So considering all of this, I suggest that we modify the uw design guidelines to gently discourage the inclusion of these icons for templates that meet both of these requirements:

  • It's a uw-1 or one-off template, not an advanced warning level.
  • It's not a template about bad-faith edits.

AFAICT, the two arguments in favor of keeping the icons are these: it's matchy-matchy with the higher level warnings (if any higher levels exist), and ILIKEIT.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I would support removing the icons from all level-1 templates for good-faith errors. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 17:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think WhatamIdoing's strongest point is that removing the icon is consistent with the research the WMF conducted on the value of personalized messages in retaining good faith editors. My instinct is that you are probably right. However, it would be great to have some emperical data. I wonder if the WMF would be intersted in testing this theory?--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

Current version: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information)."

Requested version: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information)."

My request is for two semicolons to be changed to commas. That sentence contains a list following the endash, and with those being parts of a list, it does not make grammatical sense to use semicolons there. Dustin (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Dustin V. S. I agree this phrasing is a bit sloppy, but as the list items already contain items with commas it does not lend to readability to use commas to separate list items (e.g. "threatens, attacks or impersonates another person"). All for a re-work but as this is highly visible lets find a solution here on talk before the bold/revert/discuss cycle on the template. (Please feel free to reactivate the edit request if you have a new suggestion, or if you think I'm just completely off-base here--another patrolling temped/admin will stop by). — xaosflux Talk 23:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:proposed deletion notify...

This is my first time posting to a template talk page so forgive me if I have referenced the template incorrectly. I completed a review of a new page and posted this template on the page creator's talk page as instructed by the template. I was shocked to see how insensitive the text was when it appeared on the talk page of this first-time page creator. This template is a 'biting', full of jargon that is possibly unfamiliar to new, first time editors. I am completely biased against rude warnings that appear NOT to be written in good faith. I edit in the Teahouse and I have listed myself in the Welcome committee and that has colored my perception of this template. Here is how I edited the template message after posting it to the article's talk page:

Proposed deletion of Large Hadron Compiler[edit] :Hello, Mycroftmiles. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,Large Hadron Compiler, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you don't want the article deleted: :edit the page :remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}} :save the page :Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please provide feedback to prevent its deletion. If we don't hear from you, it may be deleted after review by other editors. :I would be quite happy to help you with this problem and you can leave a note on my talk pageif you have questions. Bfpage |leave a message 6:11 am, Today (UTC−4)

Can we discuss this?   Bfpage |leave a message  10:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect test5 to uw-block

This was proposed by Callanecc, and others, over a year ago but received no feedback.

{{test5}} is antiquated and inconsistent with WP:FRIENDLYBLOCKS, which inform the user how to make an unblock request. {{uw-block}} also allows more customization, options for duration, etc, that would still output a message in accordance with standards outlined by WikiProject User Warnings. Thoughts? — MusikAnimal talk 17:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Still sounds good to me, I would have done it then but forgot about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Boldly  Done — MusikAnimal talk 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Db-attack-notice

This template takes the pagename of the attack page as a parameter, but the pagename doesn't actually display as part of the notice. This is relevant because some users might have created multiple pages and not all of them might be attack pages. (I was recently dealing with an editor who had created several pages worthy of speedy deletion, where some were just non-notable and others were attack pages.)

I realize that in some cases, we might not want to include the pagename in the notice. (For example, we might not want to repeat the name of a page titled Joe Smith Is An Idiot in the notice.) But many attack pages have harmless names, and it would be useful to be able to have the option to include the pagename in the notice since it is already being taken as a parameter anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked proxy template

I've written a new version of Template:Blocked proxy in my userspace with the intention of making the information a bit clearer for people receiving the message. Would others please have a look and let me know what you think? I'm also thinking that Template:Anonymous proxy could be redirected to Template:Blocked proxy as they seems to be doing the same job. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Callanecc. More informative, and again let's the user know how to make an unblock request. — MusikAnimal talk 01:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's much better. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Spamublock: notalk not working?

I recently substed {{spamublock|indef=yes|sig=yes|notalk=yes}}, per doc, but the resulting text still talked about "... you can add {{unblock-spamun}} to your UTP" etc. Shouldn't it change to something about e-mailing a WMF e-mail address? It Is Me Here t / c 12:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Uw-inline-el

Currently, Template:Uw-inline-el says that external links should only appear in the "External Links" section of the article. Shouldn't it also mention that external links can be used as references and include a link to WP:REFBEGIN? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ahecht: When an online URL is given as the source for some text in an article, it is not an external link but a reference. Different rules apply, see WP:EL and WP:CITE. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the distinction, but these templates aren't designed for us regulars. A new user has just been told that they need to back up the content in the main part of the article with external links to reliable sources, and then gets this template telling him never to use external links in the main part of the article (and many times the users will add a reference in the form of an external link). I am suggesting something like the text below:

Information icon Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of an article. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. If you are trying to add citations to the article, please see the referencing guide. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Uw-tilde

The warning states:

...click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This needs to be updated to show the correct icon that currently appears above the edit window. -- -- -- 02:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Update needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace/Archive_13&oldid=634772563"