This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Both Template:Uw-1rr and Template:Uw-3rr say this:
"The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done."
Problem: That page (BRD) doesn't actually tell people how to do this. It never has. Not only that, the first thing that it says is that BRD is an optional process for experienced editors. I hope that experienced editors aren't regularly receiving boilerplate messages about edit warring. People who recommend BRD to newcomers are people who have never read the page (which, granted, appears to be a fairly large proportion of editors).
I think we should remove the sentence about BRD entirely, and instead link to a simple page, suitable for newcomers, that explains how to start a discussion on a talk page. What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia invites you to just go ahead and add material that you believe improves the article. If it is written "encyclopedially", is neutral and is supported by citation, it is likely to be accepted. However, on controversial topics, others may disagree and revert your change. This is a key principle of Wikipedia: the content of articles must reflect the consensus view of editors (subject always to the neutrality principle); the existing text must stand until there is a consensus to change it. The counterpoint to this 'right of anyone to edit' is the right of others to oppose and reject that edit pending consensus. So, tempting as it may be to counter-revert and insist that you are right (even if you are, indeed especially if you are), you must resist that temptation and go to article talk page. There is where you may explain your edit: it could simply be that your phrasing has been misinterpreted and just needs a little adjustment. Or it may be that you have to show that the preponderance of reliable third party sources support your position.
That reads well to me, or at least it would if
Help:Introduction to talk pages/1 were a suitable target but it isn't.
Help:Introduction to talk pages/All is better but not much. Would it help to add a subsection to the /All version called "Dispute resolution" that reads something like Article talk pages are the place where we work out how best to improve articles. Sometimes editors disagree at first sight how best to do this: the talk page is used to resolve these differences and try to reach consensus on what changes should be made. (See Wikipedia's
bold, revert, discuss cycle if you need a fuller explanation.)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
John Maynard Friedman (
talk •
contribs) 12:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing wrote:
There is no reason we can't do both. Unfortunately, there are two discussions in different places, this one and this one. In response to the latter discussion, I have gathered ideas from that discussion and written a short essay, " Short BRD", that focuses on using BRD as a method to enforce discussion and collaboration to avoid edit warring. Take a look at the essay and feel free to use the talk page there. -- Valjean ( talk) 20:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Even ArbCom relies on BRD, so it shouldn't be downplayed as optional. It is a de facto policy. See the top of this talk page: Talk:Donald Trump. The DS sanction is a 24-hr BRD restriction. -- Valjean ( talk) 01:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added some text to {{ Uw-coi-username/sandbox}} to clarify that role names are not acceptable per WP:ROLE. I hope it'll reduce the number of rename requests rejected. Any objections to putting it live? Cabayi ( talk) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
These user warning templates would be used when a user compromises their account with user scripts.
Template:Uw-compromise1 would display:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute here, but you appear to have compromised your account with your [[User:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 19/common.{{{lang}}}|user {{{lang}}} page]]. Your edit to your user {{{lang}}} page has been reverted. Compromising an account is making it do things it does not have permission to do. Thank you!
Template:Uw-compromise2 would display:
Please refrain from compromising your account. Your edit to [[User:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 19/common.{{{lang}}}|user {{{lang}}} page]] has been reverted. Thank you!
Template:Uw-compromise3 would display:
Please stop. If you continue to compromise your account, you may be
blocked from editing.
Template:Uw-compromise4 would display:
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you compromise your account.
Template:Uw-compromise4im would display:
This is your only warning; if you compromise your account again, you will be
blocked from editing without further notice.
The reason "may" is replaced with "will" is because a user may perform a very serious action that can result in removal of all groups with that right.
Faster than Thunder (
talk) 18:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm horrible with templates; this template is used a bit beyond the removal of the {{ Copyvio}} template and expands to all templates as such, like {{ cv-revdel}} and {{ db-g12}}. Is it possible to rework the template phrasing? or could this possibly be merged into {{ uw-tdel1}} and the rest of that series? Sennecaster ( Chat) 18:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that Template:Uw-mos4im was deleted. Why is this? Anonymous from Stack Overflow ( talk) 18:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Uw-login states that there are many reasons for editing while logged out that are allowed, but the template says
Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing.
This contradicts WP:LOGOUT:
There is no policy against someone with an account editing the encyclopedia while logged out, per se. This happens for many reasons, including not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, going to a Wikipedia page directly from a link, and forgetting passwords. Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternative accounts listed earlier in this policy. To protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki.
It is my understanding that templates shouldn't contradict policies, and reading this the template could cause users who aren't familiar with the policy to either incorrectly think they are breaking the rules or users to incorrectly add this warning to users who are following the rules. Anonymous from Stack Overflow ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-spamublock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's a lone </p> in there. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 19:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
When I used {{
Uw-editsummary}}, substituted of course, it introduced four spaces on the first line, which apparently makes the text be in a code example frame, like this.
That was an interesting mechanic, news to me. Has it to do with {{{icon|}}}
? It wasn't carried over, and I don't know what it does. --
Mango från yttre rymden (
talk) 15:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
These templates would be used when a user repetitively makes the same talk page thread on the same talk page.
Template:Uw-repetitive1 would display:
Hello. It might have not been your intention, but you posted the same thread [{{{times}}}|multiple] times on [[{{{1}}}]]. Please do not do that.
Thank you for your understanding.
Template:Uw-repetitive2 would display:
Please stop posting the same thread multiple times on one talk page. Your thread has been removed.
Template:Uw-repetitive3 would display:
Please stop posting duplicate talk page threads on one talk page. If you continue to do so, as you did at [[{{{1}}}]] [{{{times}}}|multiple] times, you may be
blocked from editing.
Template:Uw-repetitive4:
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create a duplicate talk page thread on the same talk page.
Template:Uw-repetitive4im:
This is your only warning; if you create a duplicate talk page thread on the same talk page again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Faster than Thunder (
talk) 04:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Faster than Thunder: just to get things straight: the user did not spam my talk page, but my alerts, and consequently my mailbox since revert notifications automatically send me an e-mail. Veverve ( talk) 18:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The 4im user warning templates are a user's only warning, so should it be
This is your only warning; if you harm Wikipedia again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
or
This is your only warning; if you harm Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Faster than Thunder (
talk) 23:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
When designing a soft version of a user warning template recently (see above), one of the things I'd like to do is to replace the standard [Month][Year] header with a different default ("Reverting at [Page]"). My reasoning is that, despite being theoretically neutral, many editors (rightly or wrongly) learn to recognize [Month][Year] appearances in a user talk ToC as a proxy for "this is a potentially problematic user getting warned all the time", and many users therefore resent having [Month][Year] talk page sections opened on their page. This, in turn, sometimes dissuades patrollers from using some of the softer warnings on other experienced editors.
Does Twinkle have the ability to use a different default header if one is defined for a user warning template? If not, would that be desirable and/or feasible? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
this is a potentially problematic user getting warned all the time" is true, but sometimes it a good thing - FlightTime ( open channel) 21:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
These templates would be used when a user edits or moves a page which makes that page meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. This template should not be used if the criteria the page meets is G7.
Template:Uw-emqsd1 would display:
Hello, I'm
Example. I wanted to let you know that you appear to have made an edit or move to a page has been undone because it caused the page to meet
Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
Template:Uw-emqsd2 would display:
Please do not make edits or moves that cause pages to meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. Your edits appear to be
harmful and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated harm may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Template:Uw-emqsd3 would display:
Please stop. If you continue to edit or move pages so that they meet
Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, you may be
blocked from editing.
Template:Uw-emqsd4 would display:
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you edit or move a page so that it meets
Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.
Template:Uw-emqsd4im would display:
This is your only warning; if you edit or move a page so that it meets
Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Faster than Thunder (
talk) 05:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible. If someone turns a page into something that would fall under a speedy deletion criteria their edits are just reverted and/or rev-delled. The criteria for speedy deletion are so vast that these warning messages end up uselessly vague - the recipient isn't actually going to know what they did wrong, they could have added a copyvio, promotional material, attack content or a load of other things. You really should stop playing around trying to be an admin because it's becoming disruptive, it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're doing and other editors are having to waste a load of time responding to your proposals - this is the fourth terrible idea for a set of warning templates you've come up with. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Ran across a case where a (new!) user had prodded a page that had previously had a prod declined. I wanted to warn them but there was no such warning, something like:
I noticed that you tagged an article with {{ prod}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because a previous attempt to propose deletion for this page was declined or because a deletion discussion had already taken place. As a result, any future action to delete this page must be agreed at a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion. Please read that page for more information on how to start a deletion discussion. Thank you.
Would this be useful? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I have seen multiple users misusing their user talk page as a secondary or primary userpage. I wonder if anyone can make this single level notice, or how I can get consensus for making that. HelixxUnderscore ( talk) 18:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Uw-editsummary needs a very prominent hat note to say Do not use this template for editors editing on mobile, because the mobile interface does not provide any opportunity to add an edit note, let alone one that looks like the image.
Better still of course, fix the mobile interface. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk) 13:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
the mobile interface does not provide any opportunity to add an edit note", because afaik, you can leave an edit summary when editing using either the mobile view on a mobile browser, or when using the mobile app. - wolf 17:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Add discussion) on talk pages. I'm sure that there have been other occasions where my comment has been posted without giving me an opportunity to add an edit note but I can't reproduce it. If it happens again, I will come back here with details.
Read as wiki pageas being the door to section-specific comment. There is no such gate-keeper on main space.) -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
This level should be used instead of level 3 on vandalism-only accounts. For example, if I saw a vandalism-only account, I would use this level on them instead of 3. Vandalism-only accounts should have one less chance than other accounts. It should display:
You will be blocked without warning if you continue to harm Wikipedia. You have been warned previously that your edits are harmful and have disregarded them; this is your final warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than vandalizing the hard work of others.
Faster than Thunder ( talk) 23:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it feasible to update {{ Uw-copyright}}, {{ Uw-copyright-new}}, {{ Welcome-copyright}} to accept multiple articles?
I sometimes come across an obvious copyright violation (often a new editor acting in good faith), and I'll then check that user's contributions for other copyright violations - as with vandalism, it's common to see one editor do the same sort of thing on multiple pages. I'd like to be able to list multiple pages in a single warning, rather than multiple warnings ( example). I could use the "comment", "other text" field, but that appears right at the end, whereas it would make more sense to list all of the relevant pages together. (I could put all the relevant pages in the "comment", but the "article title" field gives standard wording, which is presumably a good thing.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I recently tried drafting a softer alternative to Template:Uw-ew before realizing that Template:Uw-ewsoft already exists. It's not particularly differentiated from Uw-ew, though, which I think is probably part of why it's underutilized. The other part is that it has a lot of trappings that make it suitable only for beginners, whereas I think the more common use case is where a semi-experienced editor has gotten drawn into an edit war with a newcomer trying to do something problematic because they don't know where to seek help. I think that my version helps address these things; would others approve of adopting it? (I have a separate technical question about headers, which I'll open in a new thread below to keep separate discussion separate). {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand your stance. I'm not sure that's always going to be appropriate. Indeed, I'm often baffled by a new user's intent when they refuse to write coherent edit summaries or engage on talk. Other times I am actively suppressing my understanding of what seems likely to be their intent in order to assume good faith. In either of these types of cases, I don't think I'd feel comfortable using a template with this language in it. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand your stance, that makes sense, although I wonder how often it makes sense to use the soft version in that scenario (as an aside, I think we could definitely improve {{ uw-ew}} too). Would something like
I understand the impulsebe better? Or something similar? It helps soften the message better to have some sort of acknowledgement that when you see someone make a bad revert, it's a natural impulse to think "I should undo that to bring back the better version". {{u| Sdkb}} talk 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The impulse to revert an edit you disagree with is understandable.Generalrelative ( talk) 22:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Warn the other editor for edit warring and request they be blocked if they persist.This seems like it might be interpreted as an invitation to deflect or even escalate when the norm we want to encourage is discussion that focuses on content. After all, this is a template for inexperienced editors who are not yet familiar with the WP:BRD process, so it seems to me that should be emphasized rather than the possibility that they pursue sanctions. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
That all makes sense. While you were posting, Sdkb, I was working on this suggested text. I'll offer it here just in the interest of furthering the discussion:
Hi Template index/User talk namespace! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if you believe they are justified. All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on relevant article talk pages or noticeboards rather than repeatedly revert one another.
If you've been reverted yourself, the best next step is to start a new discussion on the article's talk page. If disagreement persists, or if the other parties in the dispute refuse to engage constructively, there are several ways you can seek help:
Using these instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
If you've been reverted yourselfin templated messages, since they're a strong reminder that it's a pre-written message (since a human would know the specific circumstance), and any signal (even if subconscious) that makes a message sound less human reduces its efficacy. I'm not sure if it'll be possible to avoid that here, but let's brainstorm.
Generalrelative, Sdkb, I've just placed {{ uw-ewsoft}} on a user's talk page and was so impressed by the new wording that I looked for something to fix in the template just to be able to add an edit with an edit summary saying "fixing X -- I'm impressed, thanks to everyone who was involved in rewording this template. The result is perfect." But I wasn't able to find something to fix. Sending out barnstars. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
"as it often creates animosity between editors", which I liked as it focuses on/explains the need to cooperate, and append it to the new second sentence like so:
The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable, as this often creates animosity between editors."I think it's better this way as it immediately explains and clarifies that repeat reversions aren't in fact justifiable. Another niggle I have is that I find the exclamation mark after the user's name too informal – I'd prefer to just have a comma. Jr8825 • Talk 16:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I would like to invite y'all to a move discussion taking place at Template talk:Contrib-foreign which is within the scope of WikiProject User warnings. Please leave your opinion if you're inclined to. Thanks! --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 19:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Some time ago I suggested that the redirect "{{ uw-commentary1}} and its higher levels be added as a redirect to the {{ uw-talkinarticle}} series. As another IP editor stated, inappropriate commentary can also appear outside the article namespace and the suggestion was denied for that reason. Taking the IP's words into account I realized that the template's scope should indeed be more open, not having to be limited to article space. 172.112.210.32 ( talk) 05:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Why don't these templates accept an article parameter, while the lower ones do? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Change it to:
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to
Wikipedia are appreciated, but
a recent edit of yours has an
edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an
article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Edits with incorrect summaries could be mistaken for
vandalism. Feel free to use
the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you.
Faster than Thunder (
talk) 20:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Edits with incorrect summaries could be mistaken for vandalism.192.76.8.70 ( talk) 15:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from hijacking pages as you did with one of the pages you edited. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you.
Should be changed to:
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from hijacking pages as you did with one of the pages you edited. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you.
Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions | block) 05:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-disruptive1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If you specify an article where the disruptive editing occured, it says "such as the edit you made to (insert page name here)". But often, these warning templates are used for more than one edit on the same page, and this implies only one edit was reverted. I propose for it to be changed to "such as the edit(s) you made to (insert page name here)". That way, it applies even if the warned user made multiple disruptive edits, but doesn't interfere with if the warned user made only one disruptive edit. InterstateFive ( talk) - just another roadgeek 20:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence so lengthy that we should reduce it to:
Do not add slurs, images, symbols, or other content meant to attack or threaten certain people or groups based on nationality, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or other factors. Such content is not tolerated by Wikipedia and as such may be hidden from public view at any time by an administrator (or in extreme cases, suppressed by oversighters). Articles or files of which the only purpose is to attack, harass, threaten or disparage certain people or groups are speedily deleted. If you add hateful, derogatory, or bigoted content again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions | block) 05:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
This template would be used when someone uses an edit summary in a language other than English:
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that an edit you made appeared to use an edit summary in a language other than English. On the English Wikipedia, we try to use English for all our summaries. Using summaries in English makes it easier for others to understand changes. If you can, please provide a translation into English for your edit summaries. Thank you.
Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions | block) 18:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! In Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace text and shortcuts from the {{ shortcut}} by the right margin don't flow side by side as I usually see, but one above the other, even when/where there is enough space for both side by side.
I looked into source/wikitext? a bit, and the text that went above shortcuts was from {{ about}} and {{ redirect}} templates, that if I recall corectly, are required to stay at the top (only under {{ short description}}, as is there the case), probably for technical reasons. Next text is from {{ Consensus}} template, and comes under shortcuts box instead of flowing side by .
Here I see shotcuts are included into {{ Talk header}} by "Talk header|WT:UTM|WT:UW..." which seems to evade the problem. Can something like that be done there, too? I didn't intend to dive into talk header template documentation to find out it's features and limitations just yet, so a hint if/how it could be done there would be welcome. -- Marjan Tomki SI ( talk) 09:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I recently implemented {{ subst:Uw-ewsoft}} on a user's talk page. However, I wish to address the ambiguousness regarding whether the editor (me) needs to add a section heading when using this template, or if this task is automatically taken care of (for uniformity). Apparently, this template does not currently add a section heading to the user's page (thus, I added the heading in a subsequent edit), but the impression I was getting from the template's source code was that it is automatic. I feel that this needs to be clarified in the template's documentation. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR ( talk) 06:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I checked the template and it was not there, does anyone know why the author requested deletion? Sheep ( talk) 19:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This template would be used for blocks applied to username violations used only for advertising or promotion:
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is being used only for advertising or promotion. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as
trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to
appeal this block – read our
guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}
Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions) 19:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Any reason why there's no Template:Uw-plotsum3 or Template:Uw-plotsum4? The documentation at Template:Uw-plotsum2 shows that there's only two plot summary warnings, and no other series to use in case both of them being applied. The Silent Ones ( talk) 22:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I've created {{ Uw-bareurl}} and linked it from the template table under "Single-level templates", and from the list at Template:Single notice links. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There's {{ uw-talkinarticle}}/1/2/3 ... is there the equivalent for other namespaces where discussions do not occur on the subjectpage? (ie. filespace, categoryspace, portalspace, modulespace, mediawikispace, most of templatespace) ... discussions seem to occur on subjectpages only in WPspace and DRAFTspace, and templatespace holding pages for nominations (not regular templates). -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 05:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Could you change the image to: , in case it is the first time a user has been warned with the template? Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions) 03:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that this when the notalk
parameter of this template is switched on, much of the instructions about the policy are missing, including the three bullet points. Should we do something about it?
67.21.154.193 (
talk) 12:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Template:uw-pablock, Template:uw-adminublock, Template:uw-adminuhblock, Template:uw-botuhblock and Template:uw-ublock-nonsense to the table at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace.
Consider creating Template:uw-uhblock-nonsense as well. 67.21.154.193 ( talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Within the last 15 days, I came across two cases wherein the user has used their talk page to create drafts, one was a G11 (unambiguous self-promotion) candidate, and thus deleted with a deletion notice. But today, I see a (probably) genuine effort to create a draft article. There should be a template, that tells the user that user talk pages are only for communication, and that drafts are created in draft namespace or as subpage of the User page. There should also be a link to the destination page, where the draft has been moved to. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • C • L) 11:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-uhblock-double has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Your addition to edit your talk page" to "In addition, your addition to edit your talk page" in templates
Template:uw-uhblock-double,
Template:uw-compblock,
Template:uw-aeblock and
Template:uw-spamublock.
Also, any comment about the spamublock issue in the section above? 67.21.154.193 ( talk) 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Edit request: carry this change over to Template:uw-uhblock-double, Template:uw-compblock, Template:uw-aeblock, Template:SockBlock and Template:uw-spamublock. (text is only visible when notalk parameter is set) 67.21.154.193 ( talk) 12:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I tried changing the "max" parameter in this template at Template:Uw-islamhon1 to "1", but that seems to display an unintended "{{ 1}}" in the "level 2" field. Could anyone help? 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-block has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per
this discussion (and others elsewhere, see the VPT link in that post), I'm requesting a change to
Template:Uw-block. Please change {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
to {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
(including all the nowiki and code tags). Thank you.
199.208.172.35 (
talk) 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-block/unblock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, if the example of how to use the unblock template is copied and pasted using the visual editor, it doesnt correctly substitute and use the template. Replacing {{tlx|unblock|2=reason=<var>your reason here</var> ~~~~}}
with <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>
would fix this. See
this conversation for further details.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 04:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Sidenote: This seems to have a singular transclusion. Whats the actual use of this? Why was this made and used? Aidan9382 ( talk) 04:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-uhblock-double,
Template:uw-uhblock,
Template:Uw-upeblock,
Template:Uw-softestblock and
Template:Uw-spamublock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As mentioned to the discussion above, these templates need to be changed from {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
to {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Template:Uw-spamublock also needs {{
unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}
to be turned into {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}
. For some reason these templates dont use a main template for formatting, and so require a seperate edit for each.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 04:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I just used {{
Uw-affiliate}} to warn a user who’d posted a promotional spiel to a project talk page (and had then blanked the rest), including the pagename as a parameter. The message calls the target page an article. Would it be possible to make this template—and any others similarly coded—read “page” instead of “article” if the target is not in mainspace? An auto-switch would be ideal, if that can be done indirectly from the parameter value, but next best would be to add an optional boolean article
parameter with a default value of yes
, for which a no
value would cause “page” to be substituted.—
Odysseus
147
9 03:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:uw-ublock-nonsense has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Template:Uw-ublock-nonsense's doucmentation isn't put into a way where the documentation subpage would show. The Silent Ones ( talk) 11:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Uw-wrongreview has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mz7 ( talk) 01:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
According to a banner at the top of this very page, all pages that begin with "Template:uw-" should have their talk pages redirect here. So, then why do many pages which meet this not redirect here? (At the page I've mentioned, click "Hide redirects", I can't put the raw URL here, because it put would %<hex code> in the "?" and "&" in the link.) I've redirected Uw-3block's talk to here. The Silent Ones ( talk) 11:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-ublock-nonsense has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In
Template:Uw-ublock-nonsense, could the documentation be replaced with {{Block notice|banners={{Twinkle standard installation}}}}
? Other block templates have this as the documentation.
weeklyd3 (
block |
talk |
contributions) 18:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
is usually not required for edits to the documentation or categories of templates using a
documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. You should add this yourself to the documentation page, at the top.
Terasail
[✉️] 19:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Uw-ublock-nonsense/doc
as the template name. It seems like that template generates the documentation box itself.
Template:Block notice also says to place it at the bottom of block-notice template pages. Could you help place this on the template page itself? Thank you! weeklyd3 ( block | talk | contributions) 19:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed that the template
uw-username was causing pages to be put under
this tracking category. The issue seems to originate from the call of {{#ifeq:{{ROOTPAGENAME}}|{{{{{|safesubst:}}} ROOTPAGENAME}}|{{{category|[[Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}
. Is there any good reason for having this ifeq call, or would it be safe to remove, as its causing a template call to ROOTPAGENAME instead of a magic word call.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 10:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted the change made to uw-ewsoft that removed the wording that warned the recipient about 3RR. While the purpose of the warning is to be softer worded and therefore a less WP:BITEY template, it does not need to be worded such that it doesn't even notify them about 3RR. If you can be given an edit-warring template and then brought to WP:AN3 for violating 3RR, you should at least be notified that it's a brightline rule first, otherwise a new editor is being potentially punished for something that they're not even aware of. The template needs to mention 3RR, there's no reason to remove that and we're not doing anyone any favors by notifying them about edit warring but failing to mention 3RR, given how important 3RR is at WP:AN3, which is where most of the edit-warring editors will end up if they continue to edit war. The purpose of these templates is (1) to encourage them to stop warring, and (2) to serve as notification for the purposes of reporting at WP:AN3. If they don't know about 3RR, it fails both points, because they (1) have no incentive to stop and (2) weren't properly notified about 3RR. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. I suspect that the reason for that is that mentioning 3RR makes it difficult to use the template on the talk page of editors who haven't crossed that line yet without getting an immediate retort of "but I'm still under 3RR!"
I think that the sentence Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions.
should be removed from {{
uw-block}} or at least completley re-written. I've been thinking about this for a while: I think that sentence has completely the wrong tone and doesn't impart anything useful on the recipient.
I think this sentence is extremely patronising and belittling, especially when given to established users. "One the block has expired you can go back to editing, but don't repeat the stuff that got you blocked" is so obvious that it shouldn't need saying, it sounds like the kind of thing you'd say to a five year old. I think the link to the five pillars is largely useless - it's about the most generic "catch all" policy page you can link to and may or may not actually contain anything directly relevant to the block at hand, and basically every block message will include the specific issue with the accounts edits anyway.
This message also makes it sound like all the account's contributions were unhelpful, which is not true in a significant number of situations - I think it's mildly offensive to editors who have spent hours of time to make thousands/tens of thousands of edits to imply that their edits were not useful. 192.76.8.85 ( talk) 12:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
uw-ewsoft}} uses the code [[Talk:{{{1}}}]]
as a link to the article talk page. This works if {{{1}}}
is a regular article, but breaks if warning a user for reverting a page in template or other spaces, with the link being given as [[Talk:Template:Example]]. Is there a template out there to convert a given page name to its correct talk page?
Lord Belbury (
talk) 07:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I've proposed some changes to {{ uw-upeblock}} and {{ uw-soablock}} at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence. Please see the discussion there. – Joe ( talk) 15:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I’m on NPP and run into users who don’t know or understand the notability requirements. It would be nice to have a notice that in a couple of sentences discusses why notability required and what it is, then points to the notability page. This would save NPP lots of time spent introducing people to notability. Of course, it won’t help with further discussion, but at least it would provide a concise and clear start.
uw-wizard is the closest to this currently, but it doesn’t provide the right message and advice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Skdb: do you have any input before we roll this out? - Aoidh ( talk) 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. An article you created does not (yet) cite such sources, so it doesn't show that the topic meets Wikipedia's standards for notability.
Resources include:
Those two edits are good improvements, and I think it's good the way it is in terms of length. While more information certainly is better, there's still the tl;dr issue of what someone is willing to read, and in that aspect less is more. I think providing wikilinks to additional information satisfies the "Would you like to know more?" aspect so adding something like collapsing explanations is unnecessary, as that information is a click away and in much greater detail than a template could provide. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the Teahouse text. I was thinking of introducing this to the new page reviewers for testing, if you all think it’s good enough for wide testing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I've just discovered the template {{
sources exist}}
, used for tagging non-notable articles. Should we mention it in the documentation for the template,
Aoidh,
rsjaffe? It seems usefully complementary. It encourages others to fix the problem, a more collaborative angle on responsibility.
HLHJ (
talk) 03:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I have found that new editors (and many people, generally) ignore boilerplate messages like {{ Uw-notability}}. While I appreciate the noble intent of the message, I'm concerned the text box prods the reader to ignore it as they would a early 2000s-era banner ad. If this could be made shorter and more resemble what we might type out manually, I think that would help. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
FYI Template:Uw-namespace ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 05:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Template:Uw-copying-nosource has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-copying. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mathglot ( talk) 04:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-ublock-double has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the </p> tags to 1. the end of the sentence (You are welcome to create a new account with a username that is more easily distinguishable, or if you'd rather continue using this account, request a username change by:) and 2. the end of the sentence (Thank you.) to fix missing end tag Linter errors as otherwise if the template is substituted, it'll cause missing end tag Linter errors. Sheep ( talk) 02:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Template:Uw-copyright-new is one of those uw templates that has a few bullet points of text between a header and footer; there are many others of that ilk; {{ uw-coi}} comes to mind.
Via happy serendipity, an enhancement has been proposed that would allow the transcluder to do some simple style enhancements of the generated text, notably, bolding one of the bullet items, and perhaps a bit more. If the proposal is adopted and gains use, this could be a paradigm for updating other uw templates in a similar manner, so getting the UX and functionality right for this initial use case could make life easier and possibly provide a consistent approach for other templates down the road. Therefore, your feedback would be very much appreciated at Template talk:Uw-copyright-new#Adding bold style to bullet items or text. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 09:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-3rr has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the existing sentence:
The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|the bold, revert, discuss cycle]] for how this is done.
to this:
The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK| how this is done]].
This will link to a specific, relevant section on a policy page, rather than an essay that starts with the words "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of seeking consensus." It's also shorter and simpler, so people are more likely to read and understand the directions. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The {{ uw-chat1}} template currently says " talk pages are strictly for discussing the topic of their associated main pages .... They are not a general discussion forum about unrelated topics." But they also aren't a general discussion forum about the article's topic, which is spelled out clearly at {{ uw-chat2}}. The uw-chat1 template should properly be used to notify a user of general chat that is about the article's topic but not about the article, but its language implies that such chat is OK. It should say "talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to the associated article .... They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other." Largoplazo ( talk) 14:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-vandalism2,
Template:Uw-vandalism3,
Template:Uw-vandalism4 and
Template:Uw-vandalism4im has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please implement my changes in the sandboxes.
The rationale is we should not be calling vandals vandals. Doing so both feeds the trolls (who expect to get warnings and blocks and whatnot) and drives away good faith contributors who do not know the problems with their edits. If we just call them "unconstructive" it gives an opportunity for the editor in question to discuss the edit. Basically: calling the edits "vandalism" helps no one. I support linking to the vandalism policy page in level 3 and 4 warnings, so the editor in question can understand what policy they might be going against, but I don't support calling it outright "vandalism" even if it is. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit template-protected}}
template.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 01:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)I've shamelessly stolen some text another user uses (unfortunately I forget who it was) to educate people who misuse the user page, as I find the current warning to be vague. The changes are at [5]. Comments? Should I edit the uw-userpage template to be this? With my changes, it shows up as:
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia; as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:
The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The template in question is uw-blockindef. On Wednesday, a vandal who disrupted back in 2019 returned to edit on their talk page for further vandalism and when I saw the page I noticed the border and background colour had somehow disappeared (see [6] (the vandal who I am referring to) and [7] which was posted on the first day of 2020). When I see this version of another indeffed block user, the box with the coloured background is still there because the user was blocked this year. Can't think of a reason why placing the template on user talk pages of people who are blocked would change the appearance without anyone making such edits to the talk pages, e.g. [8] where the last edit was made in 2020. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 23:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:AfC redirect error § Requested move 1 December 2022. Clyde! Franklin! 04:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
What does this suffix mean? Sheep ( talk) 01:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Are there specific policy guidelines for when different levels of multi-level templates should be used? It seems like the general intent is for editors to start at level 1 and then work up to level 4, but I don't see anything specifically stating that you shouldn't just jump in and use the highest level. The use of level-4 templates as an initial warning could be problematic (suddenly receiving a 4th level warning can have a chilling effect on edits). Can someone point me to existing guidance on when the different levels should be used? I suspect that something exists, but I haven't been able to find it. Thanks! ParticipantObserver ( talk) 10:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
Per WP:NPOV, I feel like Template:Uw-npov1 shouldn't simply state that the edit seemed "seemed less than neutral", as this seems to only account for negative point of views, and not overly positive ones.
Maybe something as simple as "Your recent edit did not seem to be neutral and has been removed" would work. ~ Eejit43 ( talk) 23:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, as an AfC reviewer I don't generally watch user's talk pages myself (or my watchlist would be in the millions! ) Is there a template which says this, with the options to visit my talk page or email me? If not, how could I go about requesting one? TIA Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 20:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
When I tried to add it to the list of warning templates, all I got was a message saying "this template must be substituted". I would fix it myself, but I'm not good enough at template editing and I don't want to mess anything up. Could someone fix this? Thanks. 137a ( talk) 13:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
User:ST47ProxyBot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waylon111 ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-uhblock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the template Template:Uw-uhblock, please change the linked page for the word "trolling" to m:What is a troll? as this gives a definition that is more specific to Wikipedia. Partofthemachine ( talk) 01:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-vaublock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Template:Uw-vaublock, please make the text "profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia" link to the section Wikipedia:Username_policy#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames. Partofthemachine ( talk) 01:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
IMO, it would be nice to have a canned uw box to leave for editors, especially new and IP editors, asking that they PLEASE use edit summaries. All it need is a a few words giving the essentials of Help:Edit summary and a pointer to it. I'm conscious of Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep but I find this to be a perennial issue and wondered how come we don't already have it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Both Template:Uw-1rr and Template:Uw-3rr say this:
"The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done."
Problem: That page (BRD) doesn't actually tell people how to do this. It never has. Not only that, the first thing that it says is that BRD is an optional process for experienced editors. I hope that experienced editors aren't regularly receiving boilerplate messages about edit warring. People who recommend BRD to newcomers are people who have never read the page (which, granted, appears to be a fairly large proportion of editors).
I think we should remove the sentence about BRD entirely, and instead link to a simple page, suitable for newcomers, that explains how to start a discussion on a talk page. What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia invites you to just go ahead and add material that you believe improves the article. If it is written "encyclopedially", is neutral and is supported by citation, it is likely to be accepted. However, on controversial topics, others may disagree and revert your change. This is a key principle of Wikipedia: the content of articles must reflect the consensus view of editors (subject always to the neutrality principle); the existing text must stand until there is a consensus to change it. The counterpoint to this 'right of anyone to edit' is the right of others to oppose and reject that edit pending consensus. So, tempting as it may be to counter-revert and insist that you are right (even if you are, indeed especially if you are), you must resist that temptation and go to article talk page. There is where you may explain your edit: it could simply be that your phrasing has been misinterpreted and just needs a little adjustment. Or it may be that you have to show that the preponderance of reliable third party sources support your position.
That reads well to me, or at least it would if
Help:Introduction to talk pages/1 were a suitable target but it isn't.
Help:Introduction to talk pages/All is better but not much. Would it help to add a subsection to the /All version called "Dispute resolution" that reads something like Article talk pages are the place where we work out how best to improve articles. Sometimes editors disagree at first sight how best to do this: the talk page is used to resolve these differences and try to reach consensus on what changes should be made. (See Wikipedia's
bold, revert, discuss cycle if you need a fuller explanation.)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
John Maynard Friedman (
talk •
contribs) 12:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing wrote:
There is no reason we can't do both. Unfortunately, there are two discussions in different places, this one and this one. In response to the latter discussion, I have gathered ideas from that discussion and written a short essay, " Short BRD", that focuses on using BRD as a method to enforce discussion and collaboration to avoid edit warring. Take a look at the essay and feel free to use the talk page there. -- Valjean ( talk) 20:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Even ArbCom relies on BRD, so it shouldn't be downplayed as optional. It is a de facto policy. See the top of this talk page: Talk:Donald Trump. The DS sanction is a 24-hr BRD restriction. -- Valjean ( talk) 01:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added some text to {{ Uw-coi-username/sandbox}} to clarify that role names are not acceptable per WP:ROLE. I hope it'll reduce the number of rename requests rejected. Any objections to putting it live? Cabayi ( talk) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
These user warning templates would be used when a user compromises their account with user scripts.
Template:Uw-compromise1 would display:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute here, but you appear to have compromised your account with your [[User:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 19/common.{{{lang}}}|user {{{lang}}} page]]. Your edit to your user {{{lang}}} page has been reverted. Compromising an account is making it do things it does not have permission to do. Thank you!
Template:Uw-compromise2 would display:
Please refrain from compromising your account. Your edit to [[User:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 19/common.{{{lang}}}|user {{{lang}}} page]] has been reverted. Thank you!
Template:Uw-compromise3 would display:
Please stop. If you continue to compromise your account, you may be
blocked from editing.
Template:Uw-compromise4 would display:
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you compromise your account.
Template:Uw-compromise4im would display:
This is your only warning; if you compromise your account again, you will be
blocked from editing without further notice.
The reason "may" is replaced with "will" is because a user may perform a very serious action that can result in removal of all groups with that right.
Faster than Thunder (
talk) 18:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm horrible with templates; this template is used a bit beyond the removal of the {{ Copyvio}} template and expands to all templates as such, like {{ cv-revdel}} and {{ db-g12}}. Is it possible to rework the template phrasing? or could this possibly be merged into {{ uw-tdel1}} and the rest of that series? Sennecaster ( Chat) 18:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that Template:Uw-mos4im was deleted. Why is this? Anonymous from Stack Overflow ( talk) 18:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Uw-login states that there are many reasons for editing while logged out that are allowed, but the template says
Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing.
This contradicts WP:LOGOUT:
There is no policy against someone with an account editing the encyclopedia while logged out, per se. This happens for many reasons, including not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, going to a Wikipedia page directly from a link, and forgetting passwords. Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternative accounts listed earlier in this policy. To protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki.
It is my understanding that templates shouldn't contradict policies, and reading this the template could cause users who aren't familiar with the policy to either incorrectly think they are breaking the rules or users to incorrectly add this warning to users who are following the rules. Anonymous from Stack Overflow ( talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-spamublock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's a lone </p> in there. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 19:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
When I used {{
Uw-editsummary}}, substituted of course, it introduced four spaces on the first line, which apparently makes the text be in a code example frame, like this.
That was an interesting mechanic, news to me. Has it to do with {{{icon|}}}
? It wasn't carried over, and I don't know what it does. --
Mango från yttre rymden (
talk) 15:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
These templates would be used when a user repetitively makes the same talk page thread on the same talk page.
Template:Uw-repetitive1 would display:
Hello. It might have not been your intention, but you posted the same thread [{{{times}}}|multiple] times on [[{{{1}}}]]. Please do not do that.
Thank you for your understanding.
Template:Uw-repetitive2 would display:
Please stop posting the same thread multiple times on one talk page. Your thread has been removed.
Template:Uw-repetitive3 would display:
Please stop posting duplicate talk page threads on one talk page. If you continue to do so, as you did at [[{{{1}}}]] [{{{times}}}|multiple] times, you may be
blocked from editing.
Template:Uw-repetitive4:
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create a duplicate talk page thread on the same talk page.
Template:Uw-repetitive4im:
This is your only warning; if you create a duplicate talk page thread on the same talk page again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Faster than Thunder (
talk) 04:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Faster than Thunder: just to get things straight: the user did not spam my talk page, but my alerts, and consequently my mailbox since revert notifications automatically send me an e-mail. Veverve ( talk) 18:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The 4im user warning templates are a user's only warning, so should it be
This is your only warning; if you harm Wikipedia again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
or
This is your only warning; if you harm Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Faster than Thunder (
talk) 23:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
When designing a soft version of a user warning template recently (see above), one of the things I'd like to do is to replace the standard [Month][Year] header with a different default ("Reverting at [Page]"). My reasoning is that, despite being theoretically neutral, many editors (rightly or wrongly) learn to recognize [Month][Year] appearances in a user talk ToC as a proxy for "this is a potentially problematic user getting warned all the time", and many users therefore resent having [Month][Year] talk page sections opened on their page. This, in turn, sometimes dissuades patrollers from using some of the softer warnings on other experienced editors.
Does Twinkle have the ability to use a different default header if one is defined for a user warning template? If not, would that be desirable and/or feasible? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
this is a potentially problematic user getting warned all the time" is true, but sometimes it a good thing - FlightTime ( open channel) 21:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
These templates would be used when a user edits or moves a page which makes that page meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. This template should not be used if the criteria the page meets is G7.
Template:Uw-emqsd1 would display:
Hello, I'm
Example. I wanted to let you know that you appear to have made an edit or move to a page has been undone because it caused the page to meet
Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
Template:Uw-emqsd2 would display:
Please do not make edits or moves that cause pages to meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. Your edits appear to be
harmful and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated harm may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Template:Uw-emqsd3 would display:
Please stop. If you continue to edit or move pages so that they meet
Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, you may be
blocked from editing.
Template:Uw-emqsd4 would display:
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you edit or move a page so that it meets
Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.
Template:Uw-emqsd4im would display:
This is your only warning; if you edit or move a page so that it meets
Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Faster than Thunder (
talk) 05:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible. If someone turns a page into something that would fall under a speedy deletion criteria their edits are just reverted and/or rev-delled. The criteria for speedy deletion are so vast that these warning messages end up uselessly vague - the recipient isn't actually going to know what they did wrong, they could have added a copyvio, promotional material, attack content or a load of other things. You really should stop playing around trying to be an admin because it's becoming disruptive, it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're doing and other editors are having to waste a load of time responding to your proposals - this is the fourth terrible idea for a set of warning templates you've come up with. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Ran across a case where a (new!) user had prodded a page that had previously had a prod declined. I wanted to warn them but there was no such warning, something like:
I noticed that you tagged an article with {{ prod}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because a previous attempt to propose deletion for this page was declined or because a deletion discussion had already taken place. As a result, any future action to delete this page must be agreed at a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion. Please read that page for more information on how to start a deletion discussion. Thank you.
Would this be useful? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I have seen multiple users misusing their user talk page as a secondary or primary userpage. I wonder if anyone can make this single level notice, or how I can get consensus for making that. HelixxUnderscore ( talk) 18:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Uw-editsummary needs a very prominent hat note to say Do not use this template for editors editing on mobile, because the mobile interface does not provide any opportunity to add an edit note, let alone one that looks like the image.
Better still of course, fix the mobile interface. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk) 13:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
the mobile interface does not provide any opportunity to add an edit note", because afaik, you can leave an edit summary when editing using either the mobile view on a mobile browser, or when using the mobile app. - wolf 17:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Add discussion) on talk pages. I'm sure that there have been other occasions where my comment has been posted without giving me an opportunity to add an edit note but I can't reproduce it. If it happens again, I will come back here with details.
Read as wiki pageas being the door to section-specific comment. There is no such gate-keeper on main space.) -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
This level should be used instead of level 3 on vandalism-only accounts. For example, if I saw a vandalism-only account, I would use this level on them instead of 3. Vandalism-only accounts should have one less chance than other accounts. It should display:
You will be blocked without warning if you continue to harm Wikipedia. You have been warned previously that your edits are harmful and have disregarded them; this is your final warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than vandalizing the hard work of others.
Faster than Thunder ( talk) 23:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it feasible to update {{ Uw-copyright}}, {{ Uw-copyright-new}}, {{ Welcome-copyright}} to accept multiple articles?
I sometimes come across an obvious copyright violation (often a new editor acting in good faith), and I'll then check that user's contributions for other copyright violations - as with vandalism, it's common to see one editor do the same sort of thing on multiple pages. I'd like to be able to list multiple pages in a single warning, rather than multiple warnings ( example). I could use the "comment", "other text" field, but that appears right at the end, whereas it would make more sense to list all of the relevant pages together. (I could put all the relevant pages in the "comment", but the "article title" field gives standard wording, which is presumably a good thing.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 07:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I recently tried drafting a softer alternative to Template:Uw-ew before realizing that Template:Uw-ewsoft already exists. It's not particularly differentiated from Uw-ew, though, which I think is probably part of why it's underutilized. The other part is that it has a lot of trappings that make it suitable only for beginners, whereas I think the more common use case is where a semi-experienced editor has gotten drawn into an edit war with a newcomer trying to do something problematic because they don't know where to seek help. I think that my version helps address these things; would others approve of adopting it? (I have a separate technical question about headers, which I'll open in a new thread below to keep separate discussion separate). {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand your stance. I'm not sure that's always going to be appropriate. Indeed, I'm often baffled by a new user's intent when they refuse to write coherent edit summaries or engage on talk. Other times I am actively suppressing my understanding of what seems likely to be their intent in order to assume good faith. In either of these types of cases, I don't think I'd feel comfortable using a template with this language in it. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand your stance, that makes sense, although I wonder how often it makes sense to use the soft version in that scenario (as an aside, I think we could definitely improve {{ uw-ew}} too). Would something like
I understand the impulsebe better? Or something similar? It helps soften the message better to have some sort of acknowledgement that when you see someone make a bad revert, it's a natural impulse to think "I should undo that to bring back the better version". {{u| Sdkb}} talk 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The impulse to revert an edit you disagree with is understandable.Generalrelative ( talk) 22:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Warn the other editor for edit warring and request they be blocked if they persist.This seems like it might be interpreted as an invitation to deflect or even escalate when the norm we want to encourage is discussion that focuses on content. After all, this is a template for inexperienced editors who are not yet familiar with the WP:BRD process, so it seems to me that should be emphasized rather than the possibility that they pursue sanctions. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
That all makes sense. While you were posting, Sdkb, I was working on this suggested text. I'll offer it here just in the interest of furthering the discussion:
Hi Template index/User talk namespace! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if you believe they are justified. All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on relevant article talk pages or noticeboards rather than repeatedly revert one another.
If you've been reverted yourself, the best next step is to start a new discussion on the article's talk page. If disagreement persists, or if the other parties in the dispute refuse to engage constructively, there are several ways you can seek help:
Using these instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
If you've been reverted yourselfin templated messages, since they're a strong reminder that it's a pre-written message (since a human would know the specific circumstance), and any signal (even if subconscious) that makes a message sound less human reduces its efficacy. I'm not sure if it'll be possible to avoid that here, but let's brainstorm.
Generalrelative, Sdkb, I've just placed {{ uw-ewsoft}} on a user's talk page and was so impressed by the new wording that I looked for something to fix in the template just to be able to add an edit with an edit summary saying "fixing X -- I'm impressed, thanks to everyone who was involved in rewording this template. The result is perfect." But I wasn't able to find something to fix. Sending out barnstars. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
"as it often creates animosity between editors", which I liked as it focuses on/explains the need to cooperate, and append it to the new second sentence like so:
The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable, as this often creates animosity between editors."I think it's better this way as it immediately explains and clarifies that repeat reversions aren't in fact justifiable. Another niggle I have is that I find the exclamation mark after the user's name too informal – I'd prefer to just have a comma. Jr8825 • Talk 16:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I would like to invite y'all to a move discussion taking place at Template talk:Contrib-foreign which is within the scope of WikiProject User warnings. Please leave your opinion if you're inclined to. Thanks! --- CX Zoom(he/him) ( let's talk| contribs) 19:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Some time ago I suggested that the redirect "{{ uw-commentary1}} and its higher levels be added as a redirect to the {{ uw-talkinarticle}} series. As another IP editor stated, inappropriate commentary can also appear outside the article namespace and the suggestion was denied for that reason. Taking the IP's words into account I realized that the template's scope should indeed be more open, not having to be limited to article space. 172.112.210.32 ( talk) 05:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Why don't these templates accept an article parameter, while the lower ones do? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Change it to:
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to
Wikipedia are appreciated, but
a recent edit of yours has an
edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an
article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Edits with incorrect summaries could be mistaken for
vandalism. Feel free to use
the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you.
Faster than Thunder (
talk) 20:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Edits with incorrect summaries could be mistaken for vandalism.192.76.8.70 ( talk) 15:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from hijacking pages as you did with one of the pages you edited. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you.
Should be changed to:
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from hijacking pages as you did with one of the pages you edited. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you.
Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions | block) 05:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-disruptive1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If you specify an article where the disruptive editing occured, it says "such as the edit you made to (insert page name here)". But often, these warning templates are used for more than one edit on the same page, and this implies only one edit was reverted. I propose for it to be changed to "such as the edit(s) you made to (insert page name here)". That way, it applies even if the warned user made multiple disruptive edits, but doesn't interfere with if the warned user made only one disruptive edit. InterstateFive ( talk) - just another roadgeek 20:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence so lengthy that we should reduce it to:
Do not add slurs, images, symbols, or other content meant to attack or threaten certain people or groups based on nationality, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or other factors. Such content is not tolerated by Wikipedia and as such may be hidden from public view at any time by an administrator (or in extreme cases, suppressed by oversighters). Articles or files of which the only purpose is to attack, harass, threaten or disparage certain people or groups are speedily deleted. If you add hateful, derogatory, or bigoted content again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions | block) 05:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
This template would be used when someone uses an edit summary in a language other than English:
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that an edit you made appeared to use an edit summary in a language other than English. On the English Wikipedia, we try to use English for all our summaries. Using summaries in English makes it easier for others to understand changes. If you can, please provide a translation into English for your edit summaries. Thank you.
Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions | block) 18:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! In Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace text and shortcuts from the {{ shortcut}} by the right margin don't flow side by side as I usually see, but one above the other, even when/where there is enough space for both side by side.
I looked into source/wikitext? a bit, and the text that went above shortcuts was from {{ about}} and {{ redirect}} templates, that if I recall corectly, are required to stay at the top (only under {{ short description}}, as is there the case), probably for technical reasons. Next text is from {{ Consensus}} template, and comes under shortcuts box instead of flowing side by .
Here I see shotcuts are included into {{ Talk header}} by "Talk header|WT:UTM|WT:UW..." which seems to evade the problem. Can something like that be done there, too? I didn't intend to dive into talk header template documentation to find out it's features and limitations just yet, so a hint if/how it could be done there would be welcome. -- Marjan Tomki SI ( talk) 09:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I recently implemented {{ subst:Uw-ewsoft}} on a user's talk page. However, I wish to address the ambiguousness regarding whether the editor (me) needs to add a section heading when using this template, or if this task is automatically taken care of (for uniformity). Apparently, this template does not currently add a section heading to the user's page (thus, I added the heading in a subsequent edit), but the impression I was getting from the template's source code was that it is automatic. I feel that this needs to be clarified in the template's documentation. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR ( talk) 06:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I checked the template and it was not there, does anyone know why the author requested deletion? Sheep ( talk) 19:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This template would be used for blocks applied to username violations used only for advertising or promotion:
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is being used only for advertising or promotion. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as
trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to
appeal this block – read our
guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}
Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions) 19:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Any reason why there's no Template:Uw-plotsum3 or Template:Uw-plotsum4? The documentation at Template:Uw-plotsum2 shows that there's only two plot summary warnings, and no other series to use in case both of them being applied. The Silent Ones ( talk) 22:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I've created {{ Uw-bareurl}} and linked it from the template table under "Single-level templates", and from the list at Template:Single notice links. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There's {{ uw-talkinarticle}}/1/2/3 ... is there the equivalent for other namespaces where discussions do not occur on the subjectpage? (ie. filespace, categoryspace, portalspace, modulespace, mediawikispace, most of templatespace) ... discussions seem to occur on subjectpages only in WPspace and DRAFTspace, and templatespace holding pages for nominations (not regular templates). -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 05:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Could you change the image to: , in case it is the first time a user has been warned with the template? Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions) 03:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that this when the notalk
parameter of this template is switched on, much of the instructions about the policy are missing, including the three bullet points. Should we do something about it?
67.21.154.193 (
talk) 12:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Template:uw-pablock, Template:uw-adminublock, Template:uw-adminuhblock, Template:uw-botuhblock and Template:uw-ublock-nonsense to the table at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace.
Consider creating Template:uw-uhblock-nonsense as well. 67.21.154.193 ( talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Within the last 15 days, I came across two cases wherein the user has used their talk page to create drafts, one was a G11 (unambiguous self-promotion) candidate, and thus deleted with a deletion notice. But today, I see a (probably) genuine effort to create a draft article. There should be a template, that tells the user that user talk pages are only for communication, and that drafts are created in draft namespace or as subpage of the User page. There should also be a link to the destination page, where the draft has been moved to. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • C • L) 11:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-uhblock-double has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Your addition to edit your talk page" to "In addition, your addition to edit your talk page" in templates
Template:uw-uhblock-double,
Template:uw-compblock,
Template:uw-aeblock and
Template:uw-spamublock.
Also, any comment about the spamublock issue in the section above? 67.21.154.193 ( talk) 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Edit request: carry this change over to Template:uw-uhblock-double, Template:uw-compblock, Template:uw-aeblock, Template:SockBlock and Template:uw-spamublock. (text is only visible when notalk parameter is set) 67.21.154.193 ( talk) 12:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I tried changing the "max" parameter in this template at Template:Uw-islamhon1 to "1", but that seems to display an unintended "{{ 1}}" in the "level 2" field. Could anyone help? 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-block has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per
this discussion (and others elsewhere, see the VPT link in that post), I'm requesting a change to
Template:Uw-block. Please change {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
to {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
(including all the nowiki and code tags). Thank you.
199.208.172.35 (
talk) 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-block/unblock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, if the example of how to use the unblock template is copied and pasted using the visual editor, it doesnt correctly substitute and use the template. Replacing {{tlx|unblock|2=reason=<var>your reason here</var> ~~~~}}
with <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>
would fix this. See
this conversation for further details.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 04:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Sidenote: This seems to have a singular transclusion. Whats the actual use of this? Why was this made and used? Aidan9382 ( talk) 04:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-uhblock-double,
Template:uw-uhblock,
Template:Uw-upeblock,
Template:Uw-softestblock and
Template:Uw-spamublock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As mentioned to the discussion above, these templates need to be changed from {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
to {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Template:Uw-spamublock also needs {{
unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}
to be turned into {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}
. For some reason these templates dont use a main template for formatting, and so require a seperate edit for each.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 04:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I just used {{
Uw-affiliate}} to warn a user who’d posted a promotional spiel to a project talk page (and had then blanked the rest), including the pagename as a parameter. The message calls the target page an article. Would it be possible to make this template—and any others similarly coded—read “page” instead of “article” if the target is not in mainspace? An auto-switch would be ideal, if that can be done indirectly from the parameter value, but next best would be to add an optional boolean article
parameter with a default value of yes
, for which a no
value would cause “page” to be substituted.—
Odysseus
147
9 03:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:uw-ublock-nonsense has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Template:Uw-ublock-nonsense's doucmentation isn't put into a way where the documentation subpage would show. The Silent Ones ( talk) 11:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Uw-wrongreview has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mz7 ( talk) 01:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
According to a banner at the top of this very page, all pages that begin with "Template:uw-" should have their talk pages redirect here. So, then why do many pages which meet this not redirect here? (At the page I've mentioned, click "Hide redirects", I can't put the raw URL here, because it put would %<hex code> in the "?" and "&" in the link.) I've redirected Uw-3block's talk to here. The Silent Ones ( talk) 11:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-ublock-nonsense has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In
Template:Uw-ublock-nonsense, could the documentation be replaced with {{Block notice|banners={{Twinkle standard installation}}}}
? Other block templates have this as the documentation.
weeklyd3 (
block |
talk |
contributions) 18:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
is usually not required for edits to the documentation or categories of templates using a
documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. You should add this yourself to the documentation page, at the top.
Terasail
[✉️] 19:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Uw-ublock-nonsense/doc
as the template name. It seems like that template generates the documentation box itself.
Template:Block notice also says to place it at the bottom of block-notice template pages. Could you help place this on the template page itself? Thank you! weeklyd3 ( block | talk | contributions) 19:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed that the template
uw-username was causing pages to be put under
this tracking category. The issue seems to originate from the call of {{#ifeq:{{ROOTPAGENAME}}|{{{{{|safesubst:}}} ROOTPAGENAME}}|{{{category|[[Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}
. Is there any good reason for having this ifeq call, or would it be safe to remove, as its causing a template call to ROOTPAGENAME instead of a magic word call.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 10:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted the change made to uw-ewsoft that removed the wording that warned the recipient about 3RR. While the purpose of the warning is to be softer worded and therefore a less WP:BITEY template, it does not need to be worded such that it doesn't even notify them about 3RR. If you can be given an edit-warring template and then brought to WP:AN3 for violating 3RR, you should at least be notified that it's a brightline rule first, otherwise a new editor is being potentially punished for something that they're not even aware of. The template needs to mention 3RR, there's no reason to remove that and we're not doing anyone any favors by notifying them about edit warring but failing to mention 3RR, given how important 3RR is at WP:AN3, which is where most of the edit-warring editors will end up if they continue to edit war. The purpose of these templates is (1) to encourage them to stop warring, and (2) to serve as notification for the purposes of reporting at WP:AN3. If they don't know about 3RR, it fails both points, because they (1) have no incentive to stop and (2) weren't properly notified about 3RR. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. I suspect that the reason for that is that mentioning 3RR makes it difficult to use the template on the talk page of editors who haven't crossed that line yet without getting an immediate retort of "but I'm still under 3RR!"
I think that the sentence Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions.
should be removed from {{
uw-block}} or at least completley re-written. I've been thinking about this for a while: I think that sentence has completely the wrong tone and doesn't impart anything useful on the recipient.
I think this sentence is extremely patronising and belittling, especially when given to established users. "One the block has expired you can go back to editing, but don't repeat the stuff that got you blocked" is so obvious that it shouldn't need saying, it sounds like the kind of thing you'd say to a five year old. I think the link to the five pillars is largely useless - it's about the most generic "catch all" policy page you can link to and may or may not actually contain anything directly relevant to the block at hand, and basically every block message will include the specific issue with the accounts edits anyway.
This message also makes it sound like all the account's contributions were unhelpful, which is not true in a significant number of situations - I think it's mildly offensive to editors who have spent hours of time to make thousands/tens of thousands of edits to imply that their edits were not useful. 192.76.8.85 ( talk) 12:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
uw-ewsoft}} uses the code [[Talk:{{{1}}}]]
as a link to the article talk page. This works if {{{1}}}
is a regular article, but breaks if warning a user for reverting a page in template or other spaces, with the link being given as [[Talk:Template:Example]]. Is there a template out there to convert a given page name to its correct talk page?
Lord Belbury (
talk) 07:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I've proposed some changes to {{ uw-upeblock}} and {{ uw-soablock}} at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence. Please see the discussion there. – Joe ( talk) 15:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I’m on NPP and run into users who don’t know or understand the notability requirements. It would be nice to have a notice that in a couple of sentences discusses why notability required and what it is, then points to the notability page. This would save NPP lots of time spent introducing people to notability. Of course, it won’t help with further discussion, but at least it would provide a concise and clear start.
uw-wizard is the closest to this currently, but it doesn’t provide the right message and advice. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Skdb: do you have any input before we roll this out? - Aoidh ( talk) 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. An article you created does not (yet) cite such sources, so it doesn't show that the topic meets Wikipedia's standards for notability.
Resources include:
Those two edits are good improvements, and I think it's good the way it is in terms of length. While more information certainly is better, there's still the tl;dr issue of what someone is willing to read, and in that aspect less is more. I think providing wikilinks to additional information satisfies the "Would you like to know more?" aspect so adding something like collapsing explanations is unnecessary, as that information is a click away and in much greater detail than a template could provide. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the Teahouse text. I was thinking of introducing this to the new page reviewers for testing, if you all think it’s good enough for wide testing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I've just discovered the template {{
sources exist}}
, used for tagging non-notable articles. Should we mention it in the documentation for the template,
Aoidh,
rsjaffe? It seems usefully complementary. It encourages others to fix the problem, a more collaborative angle on responsibility.
HLHJ (
talk) 03:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I have found that new editors (and many people, generally) ignore boilerplate messages like {{ Uw-notability}}. While I appreciate the noble intent of the message, I'm concerned the text box prods the reader to ignore it as they would a early 2000s-era banner ad. If this could be made shorter and more resemble what we might type out manually, I think that would help. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
FYI Template:Uw-namespace ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 05:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Template:Uw-copying-nosource has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-copying. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mathglot ( talk) 04:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-ublock-double has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the </p> tags to 1. the end of the sentence (You are welcome to create a new account with a username that is more easily distinguishable, or if you'd rather continue using this account, request a username change by:) and 2. the end of the sentence (Thank you.) to fix missing end tag Linter errors as otherwise if the template is substituted, it'll cause missing end tag Linter errors. Sheep ( talk) 02:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Template:Uw-copyright-new is one of those uw templates that has a few bullet points of text between a header and footer; there are many others of that ilk; {{ uw-coi}} comes to mind.
Via happy serendipity, an enhancement has been proposed that would allow the transcluder to do some simple style enhancements of the generated text, notably, bolding one of the bullet items, and perhaps a bit more. If the proposal is adopted and gains use, this could be a paradigm for updating other uw templates in a similar manner, so getting the UX and functionality right for this initial use case could make life easier and possibly provide a consistent approach for other templates down the road. Therefore, your feedback would be very much appreciated at Template talk:Uw-copyright-new#Adding bold style to bullet items or text. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 09:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-3rr has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the existing sentence:
The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|the bold, revert, discuss cycle]] for how this is done.
to this:
The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK| how this is done]].
This will link to a specific, relevant section on a policy page, rather than an essay that starts with the words "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of seeking consensus." It's also shorter and simpler, so people are more likely to read and understand the directions. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The {{ uw-chat1}} template currently says " talk pages are strictly for discussing the topic of their associated main pages .... They are not a general discussion forum about unrelated topics." But they also aren't a general discussion forum about the article's topic, which is spelled out clearly at {{ uw-chat2}}. The uw-chat1 template should properly be used to notify a user of general chat that is about the article's topic but not about the article, but its language implies that such chat is OK. It should say "talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to the associated article .... They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other." Largoplazo ( talk) 14:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-vandalism2,
Template:Uw-vandalism3,
Template:Uw-vandalism4 and
Template:Uw-vandalism4im has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please implement my changes in the sandboxes.
The rationale is we should not be calling vandals vandals. Doing so both feeds the trolls (who expect to get warnings and blocks and whatnot) and drives away good faith contributors who do not know the problems with their edits. If we just call them "unconstructive" it gives an opportunity for the editor in question to discuss the edit. Basically: calling the edits "vandalism" helps no one. I support linking to the vandalism policy page in level 3 and 4 warnings, so the editor in question can understand what policy they might be going against, but I don't support calling it outright "vandalism" even if it is. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
Edit template-protected}}
template.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 01:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)I've shamelessly stolen some text another user uses (unfortunately I forget who it was) to educate people who misuse the user page, as I find the current warning to be vague. The changes are at [5]. Comments? Should I edit the uw-userpage template to be this? With my changes, it shows up as:
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia; as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:
The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
The template in question is uw-blockindef. On Wednesday, a vandal who disrupted back in 2019 returned to edit on their talk page for further vandalism and when I saw the page I noticed the border and background colour had somehow disappeared (see [6] (the vandal who I am referring to) and [7] which was posted on the first day of 2020). When I see this version of another indeffed block user, the box with the coloured background is still there because the user was blocked this year. Can't think of a reason why placing the template on user talk pages of people who are blocked would change the appearance without anyone making such edits to the talk pages, e.g. [8] where the last edit was made in 2020. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 23:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:AfC redirect error § Requested move 1 December 2022. Clyde! Franklin! 04:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
What does this suffix mean? Sheep ( talk) 01:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Are there specific policy guidelines for when different levels of multi-level templates should be used? It seems like the general intent is for editors to start at level 1 and then work up to level 4, but I don't see anything specifically stating that you shouldn't just jump in and use the highest level. The use of level-4 templates as an initial warning could be problematic (suddenly receiving a 4th level warning can have a chilling effect on edits). Can someone point me to existing guidance on when the different levels should be used? I suspect that something exists, but I haven't been able to find it. Thanks! ParticipantObserver ( talk) 10:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
Per WP:NPOV, I feel like Template:Uw-npov1 shouldn't simply state that the edit seemed "seemed less than neutral", as this seems to only account for negative point of views, and not overly positive ones.
Maybe something as simple as "Your recent edit did not seem to be neutral and has been removed" would work. ~ Eejit43 ( talk) 23:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, as an AfC reviewer I don't generally watch user's talk pages myself (or my watchlist would be in the millions! ) Is there a template which says this, with the options to visit my talk page or email me? If not, how could I go about requesting one? TIA Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 20:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
When I tried to add it to the list of warning templates, all I got was a message saying "this template must be substituted". I would fix it myself, but I'm not good enough at template editing and I don't want to mess anything up. Could someone fix this? Thanks. 137a ( talk) 13:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
User:ST47ProxyBot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waylon111 ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-uhblock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the template Template:Uw-uhblock, please change the linked page for the word "trolling" to m:What is a troll? as this gives a definition that is more specific to Wikipedia. Partofthemachine ( talk) 01:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Uw-vaublock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Template:Uw-vaublock, please make the text "profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia" link to the section Wikipedia:Username_policy#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames. Partofthemachine ( talk) 01:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
IMO, it would be nice to have a canned uw box to leave for editors, especially new and IP editors, asking that they PLEASE use edit summaries. All it need is a a few words giving the essentials of Help:Edit summary and a pointer to it. I'm conscious of Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep but I find this to be a perennial issue and wondered how come we don't already have it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)