Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

WP:NOT and WP:BLP

What I'm looking for is one for warning against content which is WP:NOT and another the same case but for BLP; mainly content which is just simply irrelevant here maybe citing WP:ONUS. At present, {{uw-unsourced2}} and {{uw-biog2}} are pretty useless since they "encourage" the editor that if refs are found, the WP:NOT content can be added--this is a common mistake I see in most newbies: thinking that just because they got a ref, they can add it. Especially, I want this for BLP because I come across cases where there are fairly reliable news reports covering some controversial incident but they fail because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Giving the current BLP warning only results in that offending editor WP:BOMBARDing the addition with multiple similar such references (thinking that would help). Couldn't find any userwarning concerning these two and I want to create them. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is a draft for the BLP one to get this going:

Please do not add content which gives undue weight to a particular aspect of a living person. This goes against our Biographies of living persons policy. Wikipedia has a strict policy about articles on such people (BLPs) and care should be taken while writing about them.

Content, even if referenced, does not make it automatically relevant to an article. On BLPs, care should be taken for its tone and balance. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and low quality sources from tabloid journalism are unacceptable. Isolated events should not be given undue proportion and avoid gossip even if true. Well-known incidents for public figures should also comply with our standards.

Ultimately, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to explain its relevance on the talk page. Thank you.

Suggestions? Couldn't think of any better way to start than uw-fringe. I mildly aware of the length and links but to be fair, this is a complicated situation and similar ones such as external links warning too have similar length. If this is fine, then I'll go ahead and propose a one on plain WP:NOT which should be simpler. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast:Thank you for drafting this, which does convey the basic message. I've attempted to make it more concise without losing the gist, and removed the links to bits of the BLP policy, as we have linked to the whole policy which all applies. "Well-known" can perhaps be left out because all BLP subjects are public figures to a greater or lesser extent. The other thing is not to suggest that all edits have to be justified on the talk page when first made. Like to see what you think?

Please do not add content which gives undue weight to some fact about a living person. On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people.

New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and material should not be added if it is only gossip or has little longer-term importance, or if the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention. Thank you.

: Noyster (talk), 15:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Regards to the wording, aspect is better, broader than fact since we'll be rarely dealing with facts per se, most cases it's allegations, etc.

The reason I've crammed so many shortcuts of the policy is, it's pretty lengthy and I doubt any new user would read beyond the lead; then it's easy to assume the misconception "negative content + any source = relevant". I myself have only recently discovered many small sections in it. I agree since too many links do reduce the overall point of them but something must be kept from those three: WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:PROPORTION or WP:BLPGOSSIP. Question is which one conveys the main message of the warning...? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's just say "... some statement about ..." then. Maybe WP:PROPORTION could replace the UNDUE link: it's just a short subsection of UNDUE and backs up well what we are saying here: Noyster (talk), 13:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've made it at my sandbox. Test it out like how you normally would by substing {{subst:User:Ugog Nizdast/sandbox|Article name|Additional message.}} ~~~~ somewhere.

I assume you're like me when to comes to template experience. I think it's ready in terms of syntax and the message doesn't seem to have any grammar issues, right? All is left is for me to create the actual template page. I'll go through the design guidelines once more. All of these messages will be single-level warnings, that seems to be most fitting. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good! I take it this single-level template belongs in "advisories" not "warnings". In common with most of the other advisories it may be better to use the level-1 icon rather then the level-2 icon you've got there - the editor on the receiving end probably has little idea they're breaking any rules before we tell them. If they keep on adding the offending material we then have to move on to one of the multi-level warning sequences like {{uw-biog2}} (unreferenced), {{uw-fringe2}} (undue weight), or {{uw-defamatory2}}, or in a less clear case take them to the BLP noticeboard: Noyster (talk), 13:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this would fall under advisories. Take a look at their definition from WP:UWDG: "There are also single issue notices that serve to remind other editors about minor mistakes...These notices are not classed as warnings and the actions they advise against almost never result in a block." Such advisories are not signing, no edit summary etc, really petty common newbie faux paus rather than potential BLP violations. Granted, looking at the warnings at WP:SLT show a high degree of red colour warnings and stop signs--also for new editors who didn't know what they're doing, but too serious to be soft. There are few mild ones there for newbies, so the use of seems not too harsh/not too soft. This is a one-shot warning, if it fails, you probably better off taking action such as BLP noticeboard etc, using level-2+ warnings of other kind remove its purpose of being one-time use only. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You're taking it as equivalent to a Level 4 warning? Yes, it's more than a "minor mistake" but so are many other actions that appear in the "notices" column, such as: writing an autobiography; blogging; having a WP:COI; using a non-English language; inadequate sourcing {{uw-refimprove}}; or creating invalid articles. The "undue weight" {{uw-fringe1}} and "unreferenced controversial information about living persons" {{uw-biog1}} warnings have multiple levels. I would submit that the gossipy trivialities we are seeking to discourage are on a par with these. They are likely to be inserted by new editors who simply don't know better, and what is "trivial" or "gossip" is very much down to interpretation and perspective. In the "user warnings" column come unambiguously serious violations such as attack pages, triggering edit filters, edit warring, hoaxing, legal threats, outing; with these it is mostly appropriate to say "do this again and you may be blocked". As it's more than a "minor mistake" I would settle for the orange "caution" icon in this new template but would expect it to be listed under "Single issue notices" (aka "advisories") not "single issue warnings". Anyone else got an opinion?: Noyster (talk), 11:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I re-read my post and made no such statement that it should be level 4. I'm not convinced mainly because what we're concerned here is BLP violations (+NPOV, NOT--all are policies, not guidelines, esp BLP which is usually has serious potential in my experience). However, I feel this matter of classifying it doesn't warrant us to dwell on it for so long. Moving on.

Behold, I've created {{Uw-biog-not}} copied from the sandbox version. Unless we need to clarify anything more, the I'll create a plain NOT one too almost exactly like this; I'll see throw in some syntax where we can put arguments for which part of it (NOTNEWS, NOTCRYSTAL etc). Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Error at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Single-level templates

Take a look at the entry of {{subst:uw-subst|Article}} the page there. Its preview isn't working for some reason despite it having the same syntax as other warnings. What could be wrong? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Must be something to do with the way that template works. I notice that the entire text within that template is enclosed within {{safesubst:require subst}}. We could do what the message says and "subst" the template call in the listing, but then the listing would not reflect any changes to the template itself. Needs a top-grade template expert: Noyster (talk), 11:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That "article was better before" template

Where is the template that says, "Thank you for your edit. However, I undid it because I believe the article was better before you made that edit.", the one that is put on a user talk page after a reversion of a good-faith edit with Huggle or STiki? Is it only available with Huggle/STiki? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 20:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: That must be {{Uw-gfrevert}} -- John of Reading (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Ah, thank you. I was wondering if it should be added to the project page and to Twinkle, would be very useful. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 21:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on Template:Uw-uhblock

Would you change "the chosen username is a clear violation" to "the chosen username is a blatant violation"? Blatant is a more vivid word than clear. 208.110.210.81 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Request modification to code on Template:Uw-username

I don't think it is appropriate that this template can be posted without providing an explanation of the problem. This will only confuse newbies. If you can't take the time to explain your concerns then your concerns probably aren't valid. Currently, if you don't provide a reason, a box pops up asking the user who received the warning to track down the user who left it and ask them to explain. That's just wrong. The burden is on the one doing the warning to clearly explain their reasoning, so I'd like to see this modified in some way to force the warning user to add a specific reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I support this, although I don't know how one can force the user to enter a reason. Maybe the box can be modified to be more attention-grabbing to the user who places it, and can indicate that messages without a reason should be disregarded? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 09:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a nice and simple fix: adding "disregard this"--that would definitely force the warner to choose an option.

I notice that the template lacks any arguments in the first place, they are all custom fields. The template could be coded to accept parameters for each clause (misleading, disruptive, promotional, shared use and confusing). Putting the promotional argument would add the clause "Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website" and so on. Then, we could edit the template to "default" to the first argument in case nothing is supplied; another way to encourage the warner to choose a valid option. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be good. {{uw-uall}} contains those; I was thinking maybe we could merge the two templates. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 15:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Autobiography CSD notice

I saw quite a few user pages, that are a full on autobiography. Can someone help me develop a CSD template for autobiographic articles? FriyMan ^talk 10:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

FriyMan: Among grounds for speedy deletion we have U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host and G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion for use in cases where those apply. If you want to propose extending the grounds for speedy you would have to open a discussion, perhaps here; but it seems to me that this would be unlikely to succeed, as we do tell users that they can have "limited autobiographical content" on their user pages, and what is meant by "limited" of course is up for interpretation: Noyster (talk), 12:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What Noyster said. Also, we do not concern ourselves with CSD templates here: this page concerns warning templates that are intended for use on user talk pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing warnings

User:Apollo The Logician keeps removing warnings from his talk page, what do I do? - ZLEA (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I remove everything from my talk page. Look at the page history. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@ZLEA: This is fine; see WP:OWNTALK for the guideline. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

OK - ZLEA (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning for creating infobox-only articles?

There's discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A12_-_Articles_with_No_Text and Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Infobox-Only_Articles_.28yet_again.29 suggesting that articles created with no text, just an infobox, should have their own criterion for Speedy Deletion. An alternative view is that editors who create such articles should be warned that it's unacceptable, with the normal set of increasing warnings so that they can be blocked if they ignore the advice/warning. It's suggested that this is a technique used by some spammers to insert a set of promotional articles "below the radar" - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huawei Mate S.

I would like to see a set of user warnings for editors who create articles with no text. It's unacceptable, because a lead sentence is essential for readers who search either in Google or in Wikipedia and see a list of search results: it's also essential because this is an encyclopedia of text articles, not a database of infoboxes.

I've warned an editor today using "disruptive editing" (after a longer freeformat message, and adding a text expansion), but had to go back and edit the template message to remove "and has been reverted". I suppose it could be considered to come under {{uw-create1}}, but that gives no indication to the editor as to why their page "may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages", and in particular that here it's the format of the page, not the topic, which does not conform.

Any thoughts? PamD 09:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should we use different icons in the templates?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the template icons in user talk namespace be changed as follows:

• Warnings, Multi or single level
  • Information becomes Information icon4 or Ambox notice
  • Information orange becomes Ambox important
  • Nuvola apps important becomes Ambox warning pn
  • Stop hand nuvola becomes Ambox octogon stop
• Block templates
  • Stop x nuvola with clock becomes Ambox outdated delete
  • Stop x nuvola becomes Octagon delete

Those templates wth icons outside the proposed changes may be left as is.

Pleaase show your stance using SUPPORT, NEUTRAL, or OPPOSE. Anyone is welcome to this discussion. 2001:8003:30B2:1100:BD05:3D62:D52B:48AF (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If you could link us to the images you propose to change from and to, and say where there has been any case made that changes are desirable, there might be more chance that comments will be offered: Noyster (talk), 10:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Noyster:  Done – Could you please show your stance as well as making the suggestion? 2001:8003:30B2:1100:E830:5CBD:C1C7:D1F9 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - matches changes made to the cleanup templates around 9 to 6 years ago. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

However, I would prefer it if this this was used for temporary blocks and this for indef blocks. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN: I would have chosen that image if there was a version of it with the clock. 1.129.97.82 (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have made a request at the Commons Graphic Lab for a version to be made with the clock. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the RfC statement and hopefully the change has made the images consistent. 2001:8003:30B2:1100:71C3:D013:8924:CE3E (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "it is old" is not a reason to change things. the current icons work fine.Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't see any persuasive reason to change them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  @Mr. Stradivarius: Why do you oppose to this proposal? I do respect your opinion, however I thought it would add a bit more clarity if you would explain why. 2001:8003:30B2:1100:99FD:B2E0:966E:4FA5 (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  Well, what reason is there to change them? I can't see any, other than your comment below (I presume it's yours) saying "I think it's time to change them up a little", and I agree with Jytdog that that reason isn't a particularly good one. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Would you please elaborate on why these changes are desirable? I see nothing wrong with either the current set or the one you grouped together. Dustin (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Master of Time: I grouped this one together because we have had the current set for many years. I think it's time to change them up a little. 2001:8003:30B2:1100:9CF5:CFC3:6970:4DE8 (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

uw-unsourced1 explanation of WP:BURDEN

Is this recent edit to uw-unsourced1 (adding "Please note that the verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a "fact" tag, or by its removal, may no be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material.") too heavy-handed and jargon-heavy for a good faith level-1 warning? It seems like uw-unsourced2 would be a better place for this. --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree this is a bit much for what will often be a new editor's first-ever message from a Wikipedian. The previous version conveyed the essential message OK. This new version seems more appropriate for a second notice after someone has re-added the information again without a source. Surely such major changes to much-used templates should be put up for discussion before implementing: Noyster (talk), 13:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Would you like to comment here?: Noyster (talk), 12:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys. How can we have a warning for a matter where we don't explain the most fundamental basics of the matter at issue? The first level warning is given usually in relation to a removal. At that point the person, by bedrock policy, cannot place the content back unless they meet the policy, which requires that they do so in a particular way. In my view it's a great disservice not to tell a person what just happened, what it means, and how to address it – which before this this content was added, we did not provide and so the person would not know. The result was that people in response to the template (unless somehow divining this information from somewhere else), would violate policy, in ignorance (because we did not arm them with knowledge), and be reverted again. That is a very bad result. The prior message did not "convey the basic message OK". All it said was you did not provide a reliable source. Okay, so the person reads the warning comes back and adds a reliable source, as a general referenceor as an embedded link, or even with an inline citation but not to one that directly supported the material (which is fairly common) or some other invalid way and then is reverted again, because they were not armed with the information to know what was required of them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I take the points about explaining more precisely what the editor needs to do, and can go along with firming up "published", "clearly supports" and "inline citation". But could we make it less ... litigious? These will commonly be brand-new editors who had no idea about any sourcing requirements, because Wikipedia takes no steps to prepare them before they begin editing. I really, really don't think we need to throw all this about "challenge" and "burden" at them. Not at this first stage. That can be kept in reserve in case they either do the same again or start a dispute. May I propose:

I noticed that you made a change to an article... but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. If you wish to add the material again please include a citation to a reliable, published source that directly supports the material, using an inline citation. If you need guidance on referencing...

: Noyster (talk), 13:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(Given that the preceding edit pointed out that the template wording had been "chosen after testing by the WMF", I think we should go back to the original wording until a clear consensus on the best wording can be reached here. I'll revert that now.) --McGeddon (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked?

I'm proposing that the phrase "you may be blocked" to "you will be blocked" in all warnings that are level 3 or above. All of the level 3 and above templates are designed for people that persist after their first few warnings, so there is no reason to phrase it so nicely. Also, saying "you may be blocked" might give the impression that they may be blocked if the continue, but they may not.

Basically, I propose that:

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Example, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.

Would be more effective than:

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Example, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 16:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree. It IS a warning, and should as such, be serious, straightforward and easy to understand. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Partial agree. I'd be OK with 'will' for level 4 but think 'may' should be used for level 3. Otherwise an L4 warning will look inconsistent with the previous L3 one. Perhaps I'm myself being inconsistent though, given the existence of uw-vandalism4im... Mortee (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"May" is the most these templates can say, because the final call is with the administrator who picks up the next report of an offence if there is one. That admin may judge, for instance, that lower-level warnings should have been given first, or that the editor is normally a valuable contributor and the offence just not serious enough for a block. They have this discretion and don't want to find their hands apparently tied by the editor having been told "you will be blocked": Noyster (talk), 20:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Noyster. Furthermore, if the user is not blocked, it lessens the impact of any further warnings, which all say "you will be blocked", but they haven't been. This was one reason that "will" was changed to "may" several years ago. - BilCat (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "may" is more appropriate than "will" for multiple reasons. There is no need to use a verb claiming a more "absolute" outcome. The final call is with an administrator. Dustin (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I would never use one that said "will" as I cannot make happen. If folks wanted to make an admin-only template that said "will" that would be fine by me. (turn it up to 11!) Jytdog (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to use a template that said "will" rather than "may" - it could be taken as a threat by our thinner-skinned newbie editors. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Uw-hasty

Greetings. I'm here to suggest that the following text is removed from Template:Uw-hasty as there is no policy, guideline or consensus that backs it up - "It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created." While there may have been a consensus for this in the past - indeed, someone once told me that it was policy and when I asked for evidence, linked me to a section of the CSD page that didn't exist - there's no current reason for the inclusion of this sentence, other than the opinion of the editor who added it. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Striking all of this, I'm just going to make the change myself. If anyone wants to re-add this sentence, the burden is on them to back up their changes with a policy or guideline, or a link to an RfC discussion showing consensus. Otherwise, as I said, it's just some random editor's personal opinion which has no place in a template. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Creating Templates

I have an idea for a UW template which I would like to create. Is there a proper method for doing this?

One of the things I've noticed is that people make good faith edits, but they violate policy or are grammatically incorrect and I would like to make a template for that (if one doesn't exist already and I've checked). Such edits don't count as disruptive editing or vandalism.Morphdog (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Despite its name, {{uw-vandalism1}} is appropriate in a lot of these type of situations. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the idea is that I don't want to accuse someone of being a vandal who made their edits in good faith but either used poor grammar or put their edit in a place where it doesn't belong, since that tends to drive away newcomers. Anyways, if I wanted to make a template in the future that specifically deals with user warnings, what I would need to do? Morphdog (t - c) 02:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest creating it in your sandbox, you can use code form the existing templates and write whatever you want, but I would suggest adding a link here when you're done so you can get feedback on it before moving it to template space. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is the template I have created. User:Morphdog/sandbox/uw-good-faith. Everything seems to work well. If yall make changes/improvements to it please tell me. If I don't get anything within a couple of days or so I'll add to template namespace. Morphdog (t - c) 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort you have made Morphdog, but I'm not yet convinced of the real need for a new template. {{uw-vandalism1}} doesn't actually call anyone a vandal, merely saying that their edit "did not appear to be constructive", and provides for optional additional text in a similar way to yours. For many common types of problem edits we already have specific messages such as {{uw-npov1}}, {{uw-nor1}} or {{uw-unsourced1}}; using these saves us having to explain the problem in our own words. I'd add that if the problem is just spelling or grammar, provided the meaning is clear I prefer to correct it rather than revert: Noyster (talk), 18:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it seems the only real difference here is explicitly saying "good faith" and bringing up the MOS. Grammar and spelling issues should be fixed, not reverted, if the edit is otherwise proper and made in good faith. And the MOS isn't something that we should expect very new users to be aware of and is not really binding anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll just leave it in user namespace for now in case I need it. Morphdog (t - c) 20:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify (not necessarily nominating this template for re-consideration), the point of the template was to notify users when an edit has been reverted, modified, or moved to bring it up to Wikipedia standards (the current templates for npov, nor, and unsourced assume that the edit has been reverted, and these are not the only reasons one might revert a non-malicious edit.) The reason I made it because I see a lot of edits in rc that aren't vandalism, but just don't meet the standards for an encyclopedia + doesn't deal with the content of the edit (the most common issue I see is grammar or spelling, so that's why I put it in), and I would like to let the user know of this and what I did in a professional manner.

Sure, being able to copy + paste a template for whatever issue an article has is useful, but more often than not (unless it is obvious vandalism) it can confuse the editor (this has happened to me), and also if the user knows that UW templates exist, it might make them feel like the person who reverted their edit didn't bother to take the time to write anything out. This is definitely not objective, and it does depend on the user. Just something I see happening :) Morphdog (t - c) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Please add "in addition, ..." for the talk page access has been revoked. UpsandDowns1234 18:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 18:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Icons should be more modern

I believe the icons used for block/ban/etc. should have a flat design because it looks nicer. Maybe they would look nicer?

UpsandDowns1234 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a good reason. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: it's subjective. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: What would this look like? Morphdog (t - c) 03:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates

This template seems very difficult to edit. How do I add stuff to it? UpsandDowns1234 06:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: Do you mean these edits? What exactly are you trying to achieve? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: No. I was told that BASEPAGENAME was deprecated, so I changed it. I am trying to add a sandbox block template to this block category, and it is not showing up. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsandDowns1234 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: Who told you that it was deprecated? It isn't as far as I am aware, and indeed, {{BASEPAGENAME}} can do some things that {{PAGENAME}} cannot. For example, stripping off a subpage name:

• {{BASEPAGENAME}} → Template index/User talk namespace
• {{PAGENAME}} → Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 15

When used on a page that isn't a subpage, there is no difference. But when used on a subpage (like this one), {{BASEPAGENAME}} tells us what the immediate parent page is - to go further, if used on Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates, it would emit Uw-block/doc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: See Template:BASEPAGENAME for more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsandDowns1234 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The magic word ({{BASEPAGENAME}}) is being used, not the template ({{BASEPAGENAME}}). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: The difference is in the way that you provide a parameter. If no parameters are used, i.e. {{BASEPAGENAME}}, it looks like a template but what you are actually using is the magic word, and this is as it is supposed to be. The difference becomes apparent when a parameter is provided. In my previous post, I used the example of

• {{BASEPAGENAME:Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates}} → Uw-block/doc

Notice that there are two colons; and in this case, the magic word is being used as it is with {{BASEPAGENAME}} used alone. Compare this:

• {{BASEPAGENAME|Template:Uw-block/doc/Block templates}} → Uw-block/doc

This one uses a pipe instead of the first colon, and so it doesn't use the magic word - instead it uses the template. The output appears to be the same, but this form puts the page into Category:Pages which use a template in place of a magic word.

It is the form that uses a pipe (instead of a colon) to precede the parameter which is deprecated; the magic word itself is not deprecated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit request April 2017

Please change "E-mail" to "Email" on Template:Uw-ublock. The side bar text changed to "Email this user" a few years ago. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The actual template of interest if Template:Uw-ublock/procedure, which is not edit protected. Feel free to make the change yourself. --Izno (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Template to inform user about using bare URLs in citations?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about this, but I was just wondering if there is any template that can be used to inform users about WP:Link rot and WP:Bare URLs. I haven't been able to find anything and was considering creating one, but wanted some feedback first. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Using bare URLs in refs is not a crime. Such people are going at least some of the way to satisfying WP:V, which is more than can be said for a lot of people who add content. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Redrose64. I assumed that was the reason a template didn't already exist. I guess I wasn't really thinking of it being worded as a warning, but rather as a way to help someone improve their editing, and that it would particularly useful for those who create a lot of content and consistently use bare URLs. Anyways, perhaps it's not necessary to create a template, I just thought it would be faster than writing a friendly dyk on their talk page as I have in the past. Thanks again, Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User space indexing message (Uw-userspacenoindex)

In line with the recent closure of a TfD discussion as "keep but rewrite", I have drafted a revision of {{Uw-userspacenoindex}}. The wording is intended to better reflect the current position whereby userspace is "noindexed" by default. A user page is now indexed only if the user has added code to override the default. If we remove this code, the template message may be used to explain to the user what we have done.

The revised version of the template message may be viewed here. Would anyone interested please offer comments: Noyster (talk), 11:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Noyster: Well, I'm a bit late to the party, but I had some feedback on the verbiage, I get the intent of the change, but I thought it was really important to keep the part about it being promotional in there, as there's no rule forbidding people responsibly using INDEX. Just a thought. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk warning template for the 'taking over'/hijacking of articles

While patrolling for vandalism in the past couple of days, I have run into a few counts of IP users essentially 'taking over'/hijacking (replacing all content with unrelated material) articles and so I developed a warning template for this with the help of Mz7, which can be seen here. I was wondering what your thoughts on the warning template are (I am open to suggestions on improving it). I think it could potentially be a good addition to Twinkle (as at least a single one time warning/general notice), if you agree could you please help me get it in Twinkle? Thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: No objection to a new template to better cover yet another specific case. From what I've seen, that type of thing is frequently promo / spam, so I tend to be satisfied to just hit them with one of those or generic vandalism. Perhaps your case is different to what I'm thinking of? Murph9000 (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Murph9000: Thanks for the response. The cases I have dealt with were the multiple times that Kanya and Allan Granger were taken over and re-purposed for totally unrelated things over a series of edits. In the case of Kanya it was from multiple IPs that resulted in page protection. In the case of Allan Granger an IP that engaged in the behaviour in the other article linked did it and it resulted in the IP being temp banned instead. A full discussion of this with Mz7 can be found on their talk page here (I linked section). Do you have any idea how this template could be added as an option to Twinkle? Additionally (although only semi related) do you think it would serve better to be located within the template namespace or? Hopefully this answers your question and hopefully I haven't asked too many questions in return haha. If it hasn't please feel free to clarify/let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Ahh, ok, that sounds like a more subtle case than I was thinking of, so probably worthwhile to give it a more targeted message. The case I was thinking of is where they just blunder in and quite unsubtly splat their advertorial over an existing article in more or less a single edit, where the standard vandal / promo templates are basically sufficient. Yes, if it's for general use, it should be something like Template:Uw-takeover (take your pick of a name, no number on it when it's a single issue message), copy the documentation wrapper, doc subpage, and the like from one of the existing UW templates (for the specific formatting, mix of noincludes, includeonlys, magic template incantations, etc). It should also be added to WP:UWT. You can add it to TW for your own use by adding it as a custom warning in prefs. To get it added to the base TW config, I guess request that over at WT:TW. That's assuming that it's generally cool to be bold here (I don't see why not, but I'm sure you know how it can go sometimes). If any of the complex template stuff needs help, do ask. Murph9000 (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Murph9000: It was definitely 'sneaky' vandalism that I probably would not have caught (at least as easy) without Huggle. It is for general use (Mz7 helped set it up as such). I have moved it to Template:Uw-takeover. I will add it to WP:UWT. I did not know that I could add my own custom warnings to my Twinkle - I shall do that now, thanks! I will also file something at WT:TW. Thanks for your help! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Which section in WP:UWT (single level templates) do you think it is best suited for Murph9000? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Well, it feels more like a "warning" than a "notice" / "advisory" to me, and you've chosen the warning icon. Single-level warnings seems like the obvious table to me. Murph9000 (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Murph9000: That would make simply too much sense, now wouldn't it? (haha). I will let you know when I have posted it on the twinkle page --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion has been posted and can be found here Murph9000, Mz7. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing or vandalism?

Hi.

I've recently got stuck in far too much vandalism-related meta-discussions to fail to notice this. The template {{uw-vandalism3}} reads:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

However, disruptive editing is not vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. This would be a minor issue if the first link didn't just go to an article that is not about what this warning is sent.

Any objections to fixing this?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that because vandalism was persistent (if this message was sent), it is also disruptive at this point. — PaleoNeonate — 20:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that vandalism is always disruptive. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Change "can" to "will"

I suggest changing "can" to "will" because "can" is probably not enough to stop users from disruptive editing. "Will" is correct because continued disruptive editing will result in lost editing rights 100%. "Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges." should be "Repeated vandalism will result in the loss of editing privileges." This should be changed to all templates mentioning blocks.68.228.254.131 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think "can" is correct; it's not automatic. If the vandalism isn't spotted, the vandal won't be blocked. If the vandalism is undone by an editor who doesn't know how to make a report to WP:AIV, the vandal won't be blocked. Doubtless there are other cases. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"you can leave me a message on my talk page"

I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this. Here is a quote from a standard template: "or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page". My impression is that we usually want to encourage discussion about article improvements on that article's talk page. When patrolling changes and reverting a lot of edits, this calls for users to first post on the patroller's talk page instead, even if an article was supplied as parameter. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 22:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

After rechecking, these invitations only seem be part of the first-level templates. I guess that avoiding that level is appropriate in some circumstances, especially if a former welcome message was already issued; I understand that it can be helpful for new editors otherwise. — PaleoNeonate — 20:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It may still be useful for level-2+ templates to more systematically invite discussion on the article's talk page (with an explicit link), especially for uw-pov... — PaleoNeonate — 20:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi PaleoNeonate. This template language was tested against various alternatives some years ago, and I believe the general finding was that people were less likely to vandalize if they felt like they were talking to actual humans. As a practical matter, I've used these templates thousands of times, and I don't recall anyone actually responding on my talk page as a result of the template. That said, the testing was really only done on level 1 templates, so I think you may be right about level 2 etc.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Quote:

You left me a message saying "If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page." so that's what I did.

— PaleoNeonate — 20:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I now consider this resolved, I use level-2 and upwards where appropriate. It may still be an improvement to have those include the article talk page link along with the invitation to discuss. Level-1 (with the invitation to answer on the patroller's talk page) can still be useful for very new editors who may require help. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 04:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Arabic not English template is in Chinese

Imagine my embarrassment. Maybe I can sift back and find it.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)  Done

Add A7?

The template as presently written only covers CSD A1 (no context) or A3 (no content). Should we also include A7 (notability)? There is no criticality in deleting non-notable entries, but I often see A7 tags applied within 1 or 2 minutes of article creation? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What template are you talking about, {{uw-hasty}}? If so, consensus has not been established for that (1). — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Better wording needed

The template relates to AfD, but the message invites the recipient to comment on the "proposed deletion", which is of course an entirely different process. Jellyman (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Which template are you referring to? Perhaps you meant to leave this message at that template's Talk page? DonIago (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry – I didn't notice that the individual user warning templates' talk pages redirect here. I was referring to {{Uw-afd2}}. Jellyman (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think the key is that it's referring to a proposed deletion, not Proposed Deletion, but I take your point. "the article's entry on the Articles for deletion page" would seem to be the standard wording used elsewhere, but how you could dynamically link to it is beyond my sphere of knowledge. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Page blanking messages

{{blank}} recently had a TfD that led to it being redirected to {{uw-delete1}}. I wasn't aware of the TfD at the time - I just used the template and didn't see any need to look at the template page regularly.

I started a DRV, but am now posting here to facilitate wider discussion. As stated, the wording of {{uw-delete1}} is not suitable for the scenario whereby a user has blanked a page completely.

Ideally, what I would like to do is replace the current redirect at {{uw-blank1}} with a message for this scenario, based on the message we had at {{blank}}. I suppose it would be a matter of getting {{blank}} moved to {{uw-blank1}} (since it would essentially be the same message under a different name, and as such should preserve the history) and updating the template to the modern format. (These actions need not happen in this order.) Needless to say, we should have a corresponding message for {{uw-blank2}} as well. I guess {{uw-blank3}} and {{uw-blank4}} can remain as redirects.

What do people think to this idea? — Smjg (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea, tbh. I've felt the same way at times. Gatemansgc (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Tweak wording of Template:Uw-nonfree

I am wondering if the wording of the second sentence of {{Uw-nonfree}} needs to be tweaked a bit. It currently reads as "We always appreciate when users upload new images" which is fine if the only time this template was used had to do with new image uploads, but that's not really the case. Many (perhaps most?) non-free content use violations have to do with editors inappropriately adding previously uploaded files to articles. This is sort of covered in the third sentence of the template, but sentences two and three seem to be in conflict, at least it seems like that to me. Maybe it would be better to reword/combine the two sentences in a manner to eliminate any possible confusion. FWIW, I've come across editors who assume non-free files already uploaded by others are "automatically" OK for Wikipedia and use a sort of WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED-type or WP:JUSTONE-type of argument to justify its use in other articles, which is not really how the WP:NFCCP is supposed to be applied. Obviously, this template won't eliminate all such problems, but tweaking it might better clarify things for some editors when it is added to their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 July 2017 Suggestion

Please remove the line that reads {{:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|notalk=yes}}; I find it potentially confusing and other editors may find it confusing as well; it makes it seem like the no talk part of the template is part of the actual template. Consider moving it into the documentation instead. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 06:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It's in a noinclude section:

<noinclude>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|notalk=yes}}

...

</noinclude>

- Cabayi (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that it is inside of <noinclude>...</noinclude>, it is just that when rendered, it can be found confusing. It belongs inside of the doc. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 15:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

About uw-block for enforcing editing restrictions

Since {{uw-csblock}} is for general sanctions, there doesn't seem to be a template for personal sanctions. Should I make one? Alex Shih^Talk 01:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created {{uw-cserblock}} for anyone interested. Alex Shih^Talk 05:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a link to it at WP:WARN, this could be removed if contested however. —PaleoNeonate - 21:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Altering cited quotes

I don't seem to find a template for this. It is a common occurence from POV pushing editors. I currently use uw-pov or uw-vandal in these cases which work but which require additional comment in the revert edit summary and/or on the user's talk page about MOS:PMC. —PaleoNeonate – 00:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Advert template

User:JamesBWatson, the reason I made this change, which you reverted here, is in so many cases of promotional editing, the problem is not only the language, but bad sourcing (or lack of sourcing).... Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing Username

I don't think the template should say 'Hello, I'm Jimbo' in Template:Uw-biog1 so I am planning to change this to something else. However, I don't know if I am allowed to do this or will it get reverted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: The noinclude tags within the template means it's not shown as Jimbo when the template is actually used, but by all means change it. If I could suggest, User:Example is often used in such places. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I will do the same to the other warning templates where it says 'Hello, I'm Jimbo' by changing it to 'Hello, I'm Example' to avoid confusion. Redgro (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Template line break

Hey there. Template:Uw-voablock currently has a line break between the two sentences, which looks a little weird to me. It hasn't always been there, has it? --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bongwarrior: It changed on 5 September from this series of edits to {{uw-block}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured the change was in a sub-template somewhere, but I couldn't figure out exactly where. I'll take it up with Alex at some point. The line break itself probably isn't what's bugging me, but it looks odd on the VOA template because it's only two sentences long. I'm assuming the same line break looks fine on some of the wordier templates. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa made the initial change, not Alex. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks again. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote for Template:CV

It might be helpful if {{Uw-copyright}} had a hatnote such as

"Template:CV" redirects here. For curriculum vitae, see Template:Resume and Template:Like resume.

Adding the code

{{redirect|Template:CV|curriculum vitae|Template:Resume|and|Template:Like resume}}

to the banners= parameter of {{single notice}} seems to work, but I'd rather an expert ran their eye over this change before putting it live. Thanks, Certes (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

uw-talkforum

@DIYeditor: I will not remove it myself, maybe that it could still be considered useful. However, your recent {{uw-talkforum}} addition appears redundant with the multilevel {{uw-chat1}}, {{uw-chat2}}, {{uw-chat3}}, {{uw-chat4}} templates (in particular, level 2). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Oh my don't I feel dumb, I had looked and looked and didn't see that! Searched for forum and talk page repeatedly... I will submit for deletion by author. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse?

I believe that linking to the teahouse to ask questions inside of the warning could be very helpful to new editors. This would make it so they can ask questions about their warning, after asking the warner. My change is below:

Hello, I'm <name>. I wanted to let you know that one or more of <contribs> have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the <sandbox>. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on <user talk>. If you have a question about Wikipedia's guidelines, feel free to ask it at the Teahouse.Thanks.

(Of course, it would be normal next.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocohead781 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Usernames related to a "real-world" group or organization

Template:Uw-ublock says usernames must not be "related to a "real-world" group or organization", which contradicts Wikipedia:Username policy#Usernames implying shared use where these are examples of acceptable usernames. Peter James (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. and the "real-world" is a bit odd as the "real-world" is the real world. Instead of "related" perhaps if it said "signifying a group or organization and not an individual at that organization" or something like that. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Article not rendering

I'm using {{subst:Uw-subtle2|article}}, but it won't render the name of the article (in this case is Steven Spence). What is wrong? Thinker78 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed True enough Thinker78, the template code had no provision to link an article even though the documentation says this is possible. The first-level warning {{uw-subtle1}} does include such coding, so I've now copied the coding over to {{uw-subtle2}} and it should now work as desired: Noyster (talk), 21:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Graphic and text are both out of date

The wiki-wide change implemented by WMF on 11 December 2017, which saw the renaming of the blue "Save changes" button to "Publish changes" in both source and visual editors, means that many help pages, templates and some graphics are now out of date. I hope anyone who maintains this page/template will be able to update it as soon as possible so as to minimise any confusion for new users. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism and subtle vandalism having the same level 3-5 warning templates?

They have the same level 3 warning template. Blatant vandalism has a level 4 warning template and a level 5 warning template, but subtle vandalism has neither. Since blatant vandalism's level 4 and 5 warning templates seem to be general to all vandalism, and blatant vandalism and subtle vandalism alread share a level 3 warning template, can we say that subtle vandalism has the same level 4 and 5 warning templates as blatant vandalism? Also, can we have one box that stretches across two rows, instead of two separate boxes for each level 3+ vandalism warning template, so make it obvious and apparent that they're the same template? The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 00:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think using multirow boxes makes things more confusing for the editor reading the table, and makes the table more difficult to modify.

More to the real point: The "n/a"s have been there for a long time. I have to assume there was a reason why whoever put them there did NOT do what you're suggesting. Perhaps there is info in the talk page archives here. In any case, please wait for answers from people who maintain this stuff. Jeh (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think that it would make the table easier to modify because if say…Template:Uw-vandalism3 was moved to Template:Uw-vandalizing3, it would only need to be changed once.

Do you know which specific users have been tasked with maintaining this. If so, have you contacted any of them? The N^th User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned right near the top of the page. Please note that there is WP:NODEADLINE. Jeh (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Explain where the message came from

It would be nice if the user warning templates had a standard disclaimer at the bottom saying something like:

The above message is a standardized template created by the user warnings project. You may discuss the contents of these templates at the user warning talk page.

The end of the above is in bold because I am posting this message on the page it links to. The idea being to deflect any ill feelings about the wording of the message away from the person actually posting the message. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 00:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I like this idea, particularly for the templates that warn of blocking, etc. I've gotten very strong negative feedback from using some of the templates. Jeh (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dunno, I think if this is done it should be for a trial period. This is a useful page, serving as talk page for many widely used user messages, and we wouldn't want it swamped with – er – unconstructive contributions, or arguments about the merits of the revert rather than the wording of the message. Those receiving this negative feedback, if they think it justified, can always come here: Noyster (talk), 12:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence is the important one, the second can simply be left off. Or can you suggest a better message? --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 15:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not the talk page link, per others' comments, but the other part sounds good.

New Template Suggestion: Use of another Wikipedia article as a source

Recently, I've come across a few edits where a new editor or IP tries to adds a source, but the source is to another Wikipedia article, like this. I couldn't find a pre-written template explaining why they shouldn't do that, so I wrote them an explanation myself, but it seems like we could use a better, official template for the issue. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to such a template, especially if it could be incorporated into Twinkle. Maybe just a single-level notification versus multi-tier; I don't think I've ever had to issue multiples for this, and if I did, it would likely fall under disruptive editing in any case. DonIago (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the need for such a Template. We do need to make it clear that this applies to Wikipedias in other languages too. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe one generally about unreliable sources, mentioning self-published and user-contributed material like wikis (including Wikipedia)... After a quick look I see a warning about unsourced content, but not one about unreliable sources. —PaleoNeonate – 18:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually {{uw-unsourced1}} and its successors say "you didn't provide a reliable source", so it would be possible to use this with the Additional text parameter to add something like "Sorry, we don't consider other Wikipedia articles to be a reliable source: please see this page for more explanation": Noyster (talk), 18:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It would still be helpful to have a dedicated template for the issue to avoid having to type additional text, for various reasons. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. If there's more consensus I'll make the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

New warning template(s) for addition of random characters?

Basically, I'm suggesting templatafying this example, which I typed by hand instead of substituting a template. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 03:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems like that is covered by "test edits"? If it were to be added as a new template I think it should be "stray characters", not random, because often in these cases it's not random. And it could invite the user to read instructions for new editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 03:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems like it’s already covered by either disruptive editing or plain old vandalism. I don’t see a need to start micro-parsing what kind of disruptive editing a person is doing, if they add random gibberish to an article, they know they aren’t helping. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Originally I was going to say test edits, vandalism or disruptive editing but I think the last two have an apparent intent whereas what was cited here, and is often the case with these stray character/gibberish situations, is that it looks like the user just didn't know how to edit or what appropriate changes would be. What usually seems to have happened is that the user got the edit box with a bunch of source code in it, started typing somewhere with some not-entirely-apparent goal in mind, and ended up with garbage. In the spirit of not biting newbies I think the relevant template could go further in directing them to help pages. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is no clear intent of vandalism do we really need to leave a "warning" at all? Jeh (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

NOR1 and others perhaps overly-welcoming?

Template:uw-nor1 currently begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research..." I think it's a little sloppy that we have the word 'welcome' twice in five words. Any support for changing the following sentence to simply read "We appreciate your contributions..."?

Not sure how many other templates may currently have the same issue, but would there be support for updating any others in this manner as well? DonIago (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

None of these template messages should have "Welcome to Wikipedia" on them. Every talk page should have a 'welcome message' template added at the top (graphical is my preference), at least in the beginning. If anyone goes to a talk page to post a template warning and there is not 'welcome' message, then they should add one. (I always do) I actually think this should be written into the guidelines, or perhaps just have it so that anytime a new account makes it's first edit, the talk page automatically has a welcome message added to it. I think it would be beneficial to both the new user and the project. Also, IP user talk pages often have the 'shared IP' template added, which is another welcome message. So, no... these messages don't need to say 'welcome'. (my .02¢) - ^theWOLFchild 08:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be incorporated into Twinkle's logic? DonIago (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's built into TW then there should be an opt-out checkmark. When the only edit history is several instances of clearly intended vandalism, or worse, "welcome" is inappropriate. Revert, Block, Ignore. Jeh (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Strong support. There are cases where the user isn't a newbie but L1 is appropriate. I'd like to see this change made (or I could do it myself — wp:Be bold.) —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk
contribs) 21:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jeh: When the only edit history is several instances of clearly intended vandalism, or worse, "welcome" is inappropriate. - Completely disagree. By adding the 'welcome' template, it shows we've made an effort to inform, and maybe even convert, a would-be vandal. At the very least, it eliminates the excuse "I didn't know", which some very pro-AGF admins buy from time to time. And, that's just for registered accounts. 'Welcome' templates are even more crucial for IP accounts because there could be, and often is, multiple users on the others end. One might be a vandal, but the next guy could be someone completely inexperienced, but well-intended, that could obviously benefit from the 'welcome' message and all the included links. - ^theWOLFchild 22:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. —PaleoNeonate – 16:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Having recently received the equivalent of a trouting by an admin for essentially not having been as nice to a new, non-IP editor as the admin thought I maybe could have been, I'm forced to agree as well. I neglected to point out that they'd just templated a regular in the process, figuring that merely deleting their message was the best course. DonIago (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

We've gone well beyond the original proposal to remove two words from one template (which I support), but I'd just point out that we already have {{welcometest}}, {{welcomevandal}}, {{welcomeunsourced}} and others, which combine a welcome with a telling-off: Noyster (talk), 23:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and the acknowledgment that we've drifted off-topic a bit. Nobody seems to be opposed to the edit I proposed, but I'll give it a few more days before I make or request any formal changes. DonIago (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the NOR1 template as nobody seemed to have any objection to that. I didn't see any others that had the issue with duplicate uses of "welcome". Happy to continue the discussion of whether a welcome template should be added when a user warning is the first thing being added to a user talk page (that seems to be what we're getting at?), but that wasn't really my initiative. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

request a slight change

change current text for Template:Uw-vandalism1 from;

Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

to;

Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.

Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 02:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This is not a "slight change". -- John of Reading (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@John of Reading: - This is not a "slight change". - Of course it is. The notice basically remains the same, except at the end, we're now simply directing these would-be vandals to the help desk where they are less likely to vandalize further and more likely to be set in the right direction, instead of inviting them back to our own talk pages to vandalize further in revenge for being reverted and warned. This is win-win. Now if you can't see that for yourself, just how and where do you propose I establish consensus for this? (and thanks for linking "consensus", I had no idea what it meant). Do I just wait and see if anyone happens to pass by this section, of this page, and !votes? As a template editor, surely you can make minor, obvious improvements on your own? Especially one like this that is not "controversial", (and save me the trouble of manually changing each notice to this new variant anyway, every time I use the template... ) Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 16:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the proposed change, as I think those placing these templated user notices should be prepared to justify them if challenged. There is also a saving of labour this way, as the editor placing the template already knows why, whereas a help desk volunteer would have to look up the edit and its context before concocting a reply.

Many of the new or inexperienced editors or IPs who receive these Level 1 user messages are not malicious vandals (and the message doesn't accuse them of this), just not aware of Wikipedia standards and practice. However, in my experience it is quite rare for such editors to take up the invitation to my talk page. If they respond at all, they just repeat the edit, or type something on their own talk page below the template, without a ping so it's only picked up if I am watching that talk page. But if they are bent on mischief, isn't it better for them to temporarily damage one user's talk page rather than a highly visible venue like a help desk?

Now about seeking consensus: if a proposal on the relevant project talk page isn't getting a response, there are the village pumps. But this page I see has 840 watchers, and doubles as the talk page for the WikiProject on user warnings. It should attract an adequate range of views (he says hopefully): Noyster (talk), 17:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your response. But, I'm not clear how it supports, or really even explains your "oppose". To quote your own words; "...in my experience it is quite rare for such editors to take up the invitation to my talk page.", so, again... then why are we adding this suggestion at the end of the message? You go on to say; "If they respond at all, they just repeat the edit, or type something on their own talk page below the template, without a ping so it's only picked up if I am watching that talk page." Sounds like they could benefit from some advice if they were directed to, say... the help desk? But you oppose that because; "There is also a saving of labour this way," (not directing them to the help desk) "as the editor placing the template already knows why, whereas a help desk volunteer would have to look up the edit and its context before concocting a reply." But, isn't that why the volunteers are at the help desk in the first place? You want to "save them the trouble of helping people"...? And how labor-intensive is it really to click a link or two? Anyway, like I said... thank you for your response. Despite the oppose, it actually helps support my proposed change. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 17:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's 2 out of 840. Anyone else? - ^theWOLFchild 20:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• This change is not minor because it removes the advice on what the user should do if (they believe) they were templated in error. If it was a mistake why should they go to the help desk? I have indeed hesitated to use this template at times because of it directing the user back to my page, which even adding a signature does, but I don't think this proposed change adequately addresses the scenarios now covered. What other first step should someone take in the event of an erroneous template? I can't think of anything more appropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, like you said, our signature is right there at the end of the message, with a link to our user/talk page. If they feel we've made a mistake, and they are knowledgeable enough, they can tell us directly what they think with one click. If they lack even that basic usage knowledge, then the help desk is exactly where we should be directing them. Like I said, it's win-win. Not sure why you guys keep saying you 'oppose' this change while at the same time posting comments that support it. So let's just change it already. I'm sure the whole project won't collapse overnight. If it does, just tell Jim and the gang to blame me. - ^theWOLFchild 09:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• One way to pull in more opinions would be to make an RfC of it, and it is important to ensure that we have these wordings right in view of the sheer volume of use, with 200,000 uses of {{uw-vandalism1}} and another 150,000 uses of {{uw-unsourced1}}. That said, consensus for changing the wordings is rarely reached as seen in previous discussions here, such as this and this, and it will be pointed out that the wordings were extensively tested by WMF (details here): Noyster (talk), 09:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Great! More bureaucracy and grief. Thanks for the reply, but I think it'll just be easier for me to continue changing the wording manually after I add the template, instead of dancing in this circus just to request such a minor and obvious improvement. Good work everyone, carry on... - ^theWOLFchild 11:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

For editors who prefer not to offer to deal with any comeback themselves, or don't like the wording for any other reason, they may always set up an amended template for their own use: just copy over the code of the existing template, amend the wording to taste, and save as a user subpage: Noyster (talk), 13:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That's something I was considering last night before I turned in/off, but thanks for the tip. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me that I usually avoid using level-1 templates, starting with level-2, for this reason. There are exceptions where I want to invite discussion on my user page, but I often find it unproductive for blatant vandalism warnings. —PaleoNeonate – 08:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've actually noticed that quite a few editors go straight to the second level templates, and I imagine that in most cases it's for the same reason we've mentioned here. People aren't interested in inviting drama to their own talk pages just because they volunteered some of their time to help the project and clean up the vandalism. I did notice that the Template:Uw-nor1 notice doesn't invite people back to the posters talk page, and yet the project survives. Still not sure why the other notices can't follow suit. John of Reading has become silent on the subject. Anyway... we're up to 4 out of 840, we're really rolling now! - ^theWOLFchild 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I imagine 4 out of 840 is about as far as this is going to go without attracting some attention first. Maybe you could start an RfC on removing the invitation to the warning user's talk page from all the level 1 templates? Any arguments for one apply to the others, and I see that this is in every one that I checked (just the first few that stood out on the page admittedly). This really would require some broader consensus. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised it got this many replies. I'll think about doing an RfC, but I have feeling it would be a waste of time. Thanks for the replies though... - ^theWOLFchild 21:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

impromptu straw poll

• Support removal of invitation to user talk page from level 1 warning templates. I think this is actually an interesting question since it appears in some of the most sensitive level 1 warnings but not the others. A "tech" RfC might not get much more attention than this section has already but if it were advertised as well in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) I'm sure it would get a response. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• support removing to come to "my" talk page. I often change to "leave a message below", which I think is better, but the HelpDesk is better than "my talk page". Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support (as requester) woohoo, we're off to the races... - ^theWOLFchild 06:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. —PaleoNeonate – 08:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There are those among us who deprecate the whole practice of sending templated messages via Twinkle. Myself, I think the system is a great time-saver; but the anti-template case is strengthened if we seem to want to delegate to someone else the task of dealing with any feedback. Why shouldn't we even offer to explain or justify our own actions? As far as I know the present messages are not causing anyone's talk page to be overwhelmed with constant vandalism: Noyster (talk), 17:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

One thing I noticed (from experience when I used level-1) is that it also encourages editors to debate on personal user pages instead of at the relevant article's talk page (so I had to redirect discussions). Justification is usually already done via edit summaries with a relevant link to policy, style guide, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 10:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh and the template should ideally be chosen to give a good idea of what was wrong of course... —PaleoNeonate – 10:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and to reply to Noysters point, I actually use the optional comment sections often and write addition information. I also ensure every talk page has a 'welcome' template, and if it doesn't, I add one and direct the user to read thru it. And I will say again, we sign these notices with links to our talk pages. If the user wants to contact us directly, and not about an article issue, then our tp is a click away. This express invite is simply not needed and the notice would be better served if the user was directed to someplace more beneficial to them, like the help desk, or the teahouse, or the ref desk, or the pump, or the bah-zillion links in the welcome template that could address more specific issues. Thus far, I have not seen one, solid reason to not make this change, other than "I don't want to". But if you "deprecate" the use of these notices in the first place, what do you care what they say? - ^theWOLFchild 14:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Hi, as you can see, there was a discussion and now consensus in support of the change I proposed. So if you see that done, it would be appreciated. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 07:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I have no experience in evaluating a consensus. I have re-activated the edit request so that other template editors or admins will look at it. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@John of Reading: -This has now been up for 27 days... is there really a need to drag this out any further? I followed your request, a number of editors responded, a straw poll shows a consensus in favour of the change. This is why you have template editor tool (and anyone having this tool should be able to "evaluate" a simple and obvious consensus). Please drop the WP:STICK already and make the change the community has asked for. Thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 17:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I no longer have the right to edit this template. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Wow. That's, um... a little dramatic. But still, probably for the best. Anyhow, best of luck to you in your future editing endeavors. - ^theWOLFchild 22:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, so... is there a template editor here, that still has his or her rights, that can make this change now? Please? - ^theWOLFchild 23:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks & Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I did not notice this proposal until after the change was made, since I don't follow this talk page. Nevertheless, I would like to register an oppose and would ask that this be reverted. If the purpose of this is to reduce riff raff, wouldn't this just move the riff raff from one location to another? I fear this change would actually invite vandalism to an even more highly visible location (the Help Desk surely has more people watching it than your average user talk page). Moreover, I think Noyster has it right when they point out that editors using these warnings should be prepared to justify them when asked, and while this new wording does not directly preclude that, it seems to discourage it by pointing to a different location where questions about the warning should sent. In other words, I'm afraid this new wording gives the impression, "If you think I made a mistake, go complain about it elsewhere."
  The least problematic solution is to keep on doing what has always worked: If a new user asks you a question because of this template, help the user by responding to the question yourself. If a vandal decides to vandalize your talk page because of this template, just take the two seconds to click the rollback button. So far, however, user talk pages have not been overwhelmed with vandalism because of this template. Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to add, I also think it's a mistake to assume that new editors automatically know how to contact other users via a user talk page. It may not be obvious to new editors that the "(talk)" button in signatures is a page where you can contact that editor (yes, this seems like it should be common sense to us experienced editors, but believe me, new editors don't necessarily know this), and as a matter of fact, some editors have customized their signatures so that they either don't contain a link to their user talk page or it's less conspicuous. I just don't see this as the "win-win" that others above do because it unnecessarily makes the discussion process more confusing for the new editors we send this warning to. Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps that the removal of the invitation would be better than redirecting it. One issue that I noticed is that the changes were only done for some of the warnings (i.e. uw-vandal1 but not uw-pov1). It's possible that the change was done too hastily. I support reverting the change for now until a clear consensus can be assessed (~30 days+ discussion), then to if necessary update all relevant level-1 templates for consistency. These have been this way for a while and it's not a critical enough issue to require an urgent fix. Another recently discussed aspect was welcome messages. I have noticed that some templates automatically include a welcome message along if none exists (CSD if I remember); I'm not sure if this is doable for level-1 templates. But if so, it's another aspect to consider, where the chosen welcome message and level-1 template wording could be complementary. Of course, I also remember of editors finding that welcoming a vandal is ridiculous, keeping them independent allows contextual judgement (just like avoiding level-1 and skipping to level-2 is already possible)... —PaleoNeonate – 00:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I would have to oppose any revert of the changes made. This was not "hastily" done, this was posted here for an entire month. We had a consensus and the change was made. We can't just go around undoing every change made by a group just because one person came late and decided they don't like it. What would be the point in ever having discussions and forming consensus in the first place , if a single person can undo it all? I suggest the change remain in place for a minimum 120 days, during which time a wider section of the community can use the template, take notice of the change, and if they have any concerns, post them here. When that time period is up, we can re-visit the issue then, if there is enough feedback to warrant it. - ^theWOLFchild 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional note: to address Mz7's specific comments; Please read the entire discussion. There is no effect of "shifting the riff raff from one place to another", and no... this isn't something that has "always" worked. The fact is, our signatures are attached to these templates, with our usernames and a direct link to our talk page. The additional, express invitation is not only redundant, but can be counter-productive. Users who are here solely to vandalize, aren't going to follow any invitations anywhere (except perhaps to vandalize the talk pages of those who just templated them). Users who are knowledgeable enough, will go to our talk pages if they so desire, and users who aren't even knowledgeable enough to do that, should be directed to the help desk. Are you manning your talk page 24/7, ready to help someone who comes along with questions? The help desk is the better venue. Further, people here commented that they specifically skipped the first level template because of the invite and went straight to the second level to avoid inviting people to their talk pages, especially vandals. I have noticed this on numerous IP user talk pages... second level warnings with no first level notice preceding it. I used to do the same thing, then I started re-wording the message afterword, to remove the invite. This is a clear improvement to the template, that can only help the more inexperienced users, and reduce talk page vandalism. There is no 'downside' here. Of course, the only way to prove or disprove this is to leave it be and see. - ^theWOLFchild 02:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If an editor feels that their contribution was incorrectly reverted, it is more appropriate for them to contact the user who reverted their edit, rather than post the issue to the help desk. (And it's an unnecessarily roundabout solution to require them to first ask at the help desk "How can I contact this user?" if they can't find where the user talk page is.)

If we are skipping level 1 because the vandalism was particularly egregious, then that's okay – that's common practice. However, if we are skipping level 1 on test edits or other minor vandalism just because we don't want to invite the user to contact us, I would argue that we need to adjust our behavior, rather than the template. If we are skipping level 1 because we are concerned that it would invite the user to vandalize our talk pages, then using the very same logic, wouldn't changing the link invite the user to vandalize the help desk (which might even be a more appealing target)?

In the end, I don't think this is the most pressing of issues facing the encyclopedia, so I'm not sure whether the 30-day RfC is necessary (and I apologize for using so many words already). I just wanted to note that I think the template was better before the change. Mz7 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping anyone from contacting an editor that has templated them. But if they don't even know the basics of following a link to a user talk page from a signature, then they are better served at the help desk. If this leads someone to vandalize the help desk, aren't they more likely and quickly to be blocked by an admin, than if they vandalize a user talk page that the user might not even see for days? And, no... it's not "okay" to just skip to level two, not if it's the person's first misstep. They should receive a level one notice and now they are more likely to. Lastly, there is an "optional message" box in the template. You can use that invite level one vandals directly to your talk page anytime you like. But seriously, I don't see why we would want to steer people in need of help away from the help desk? I don't see the benefit in that. - ^theWOLFchild 04:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 February 2018

This template has a missing end tag for <div> and the </div> is misplaced; it doesn't close the <div> tag and is therefore stripped. Anomalocaris (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: would you please demonstrate the fix you want in Template:Uw-ublock/sandbox? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux: The two lint errors were external to {{Uw-ublock}}. Sorry for wasting your time. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Uw-nonfree

I'm wondering a slight tweaking of the wording of Template:uw-non-free by be needed. As currently worded, the second sentence is "We always appreciate when users upload files.", but this template is often used (at least by me) to also notify users inappropriately adding non-free files to articles as well even when they are not the original uploader of the file. There've been a few cases where I've used this template, when the response has been basically of a "I did not upload the file, so this does not apply to me" nature. If I've been misusing this template, it was totally done in good faith and I'll stop using it in such cases. However, tweaking the second sentence to something like "We always appreciate when users upload files or add them to articles." The current third sentence in the template does mention "or added to a page", but some people seem to only read as far as sentence 2.

While it's true that many non-free files have problems right from the start and the uploader is the person to notify, these mostt often have to do with WP:FCSD and can be resolved using those CSD templates. Many non-free files are actually fine for their original intended use, but problems arise when other editors start adding them to other articles where non-free might not be justified. Anyway, tweaking this template is just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 February 2018

Please add {{subst:tfm|UsernameSoftBlocked}} (to {{Uw-ublock}}), per a nomination by 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:E563:6FD1:3949:3B5F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 04:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Template:Uw-efblock a good idea?

I've seen administrators using it in the recent changes feed. I'm wondering about the kind of message that is sent when someone sees that they have been blocked for falling afoul of an edit filter, which is solely a convenience for editors to find edits that are potentially harmful. It sounds a lot like giving over the control Wikipedia editing privileges to computer systems with minimal manual review. Airbornemihir (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Uw-unsourced1 Daily Mail

Iggy the Swan recently added the following sentence to the end of {{Uw-unsourced1}}: "Remember that Daily Mail sources are not reliable on Wikipedia." The template is widely used and in my experience, most times this template is used, it's not a WP:DAILYMAIL issue, and when it is, we can talk about that specifically in a comment. I think the addition will confuse new users more than it will clarify, and I accordingly reverted it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not only is it not reliable, but its use as a source is generally prohibited. That said, I wonder how many average readers of Wikipedia outside the UK have even heard of the Daily Mail. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is fairly well known in the United States. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I should've clarified. Whatever the merits of creating a uw-dailymail, the inclusion of a sentence about the Daily Mail in uw-unsourced seems confusing and inappropriate to me. That template is probably used hundreds of times a day, and I would wager that in less than 1% of those cases is the use of The Daily Mail remotely relevant. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

Ideally, I think the wording between the template that our top RC patroller uses and the templates the rest of the community uses should be similar in wording. In that spirit, I'm requesting a semi-bold change in adding the phrase "Your edits continue to appear to... with respective examples below.

• Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted.
• Your edits continue to appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

Thanks in advance for your consideration! Sierrak28 (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sierrak28: The trouble is, humans often use level two or level three templates as the first warning – for example, in cases of clear vandalism where a level 1 might be inappropriate but a 4im is clearly also inappropriate. In those instances, a "continue to..." note would be quite confusing. Cluebot will only give a level two if there's already a level one, which means it's always accurate if it says "your edits continue to appear...". I could be wrong and this could be a very helpful change with few drawbacks, but in any event, getting consensus would be good for a change like this to a template this widely substed. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018

I Want to Replace with our Website Link Instead of this dead link. Karthiknil (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Karthiknil "Our website link"? Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are not supposed to be shared by more than one person. — On your question: I take it you do not in fact want to change the message at {{Uw-deadlink}}, but instead you want to make a change to a link in some article. You may do this yourself but please ensure that the link is relevant to the particular article and conforms to our external links policy, and that your aim is not merely to promote some company or business: Noyster (talk), 11:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

selfrevert-2 needed

{{uw-selfrevert2}} is neeeded IMO, because other level-2 warnings contain phrase "was reverted". So I had to jump right to uw-t3. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone implement this? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure Staszek Lem: at present {{uw-selfrevert}} is a single-level notice. Doing a bad edit and self-reverting once may be regarded as a test; doing the same again after being told not to looks like vandalism, looks like they want to share the vandalised page around before they revert. It is always possible to use the second-level vandalism or test messages and edit them to remove the "has been reverted" part, or type your own message: Noyster (talk), 14:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Typing my own message is waste of my own time, which is the purpose of a vandal:to mess with Wikipedians' work, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: I first thought the same, but it is not needed, and there is also no need to jump to uw-t3! Template:uw-test2 contains the phrase "even if you intend to fix them later", explaining why self-reverting is not sufficient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Somehow I missed the "if you intend" part in {{uw-t2}}. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Signature button picture in Template:uw-tilde

In Template:uw-tilde there are two different pictures of signature buttons, but the buttons have changed again. Could somebody please include the new button picture? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 05:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

uw-islamhon

I created some user warning templates ({{uw-islamhon1}}, {{uw-islamhon2}}, {{uw-islamhon3}}, and {{uw-islamhon4}}) for people adding Islamic honorifics to articles against this Manual of Style guideline. Both {{uw-mos1}} and {{uw-npov1}} both work moderately well for this purpose, but leave out specific information and don't link to both the relevant guideline as well as WP:NPOV. In addition, I've seen a relatively large number of edits in the recent changes feed that violate this specific guideline. I'm seeking consensus, should these templates be added to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace? Are they even necessary at all? –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 08:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Being BOLD and adding this series to the template list. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 06:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Lying in edit summaries

Sometimes it seems like editors (especially ip editors) just lie in their edit summaries even when they seem to be doing constructive work, I find this to be a big problem when they do this becuse I don't feel they can actually be trusted.★Trekker (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Some do, but I wouldn't generalize. Regardless I don't think this is the page to discuss that –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 08:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I want a template for this. Where else should I bring this up?★Trekker (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There already is one. Template:uw-wrongsummary. Available in WP:Twinkle. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, guess I need to get twinkle then.★Trekker (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You can use the template without Twinkle access, just needs to be plugged in manually. DonIago (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!★Trekker (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Just an observation: a "false" edit summary isn't necessarily lying, as that implies an intent to deceive. IIRC, IP editors are forced to chose a summary from the drop-down menu before they can save their edits, and so may just chose one at random. Also, it could just be incompetence, and we get a lot of that too! - BilCat (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

True enough; happily the template I linked to makes no assumption of intent. DonIago (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Add "not removed" parameter to Uw-unsourced1

I suggest adding a "not removed" parameter to the Uw-unsourced1 warning because sometimes, for various reasons, the offending edits are not removed and so the template cannot be used because it states that the edits have been removed. Thinker78 (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Uw-canvass

Can someone suggest changes to "It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote" to better reflect what WP:CANVASS says? The messages can be left on any page and even if the choice was appropriate, the wording of the message still has to be neutral. Impetus for this request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN: "It appears that you have been canvassing—sending notifications with the intention of influencing the outcome of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote in a certain way."? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Galobtter: Simple. I like it! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• I basically just took the wording of WP:CANVASS Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Could shorten to "It appears that you have been canvassing—sending notifications with the intention of influencing the outcome of an ongoing community discussion in a certain way." which'd basically be the wording on WP:CANVASS with the addition of "ongoing community" Galobtter (pingó mió)

More help for new users in uw-test1

Since {{uw-test1}} is used for those who might be completely new users to Wikipedia who have no idea how to edit, perhaps we can offer some additional advice in it? Something like:

Hello, I'm Example. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you are a new user, you may find the guide Contributing to Wikipedia helpful. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Or should uw-test1 be linked separately along side {{welcome}} instead in the case of obvious new users? I think welcome may obscure the message from the user. Also directing them to your talk page for "any questions" does not seem appropriate without first offering general information. Another option would be linking Help:Editing instead of Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Uw-harass4im

With regards to {{Uw-harass4im}} I propose that fellow Wikipedian(s) is changed to a fellow Wikipedian per {{Uw-harass4}}. wumbolo ^^^ 12:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Nigos changed it from the latter to the former a few months ago. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 June 2018

Please replace the redirect to Template:Uw-delete1 with a redirect to Template:Uw-blank1. Reason: Improving the redirect to match the actual intention behind the redirect name. See also: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-blank1&diff=800957156&oldid=411526799&diffmode=source ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: Clarifying that I'm requesting a redirect change ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Second request

Please replace the redirect to Template:Uw-delete2 with a redirect to Template:Uw-blank2. See the request above. Reason: Improving the redirect to match the actual intention behind the redirect name. See also: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-blank1&diff=800957156&oldid=411526799&diffmode=source ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: Clarifying that I'm requesting a redirect change ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 June 2018

Please have a look at the source code of this request.

Original version:

Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that.

New version:

Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you think that the page should be deleted, please have a look at the following guide:

• Wikipedia:How to delete a page

If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The bullet point seems to disrurpt the flow of the message. How about without? I've sandboxed at Template:Uw-blank2/sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Oh, that's a good point. My main intention was to use the page name as the link title, to avoid any confusion, especially on mobile devices without the ability to "hover" over a link quickly. I wanted to make very clear and obvious that there is a help page dedicated to the topic, and that reading it will actually help. The bullet point is not needed for this; I added it because the simple solution in the sandbox didn't come to my mind. I like your change! Let's implement that one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request — 10 June 2018

Requesting that “Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges” is changed to “Repeated vandalism will result in the loss of editing privileges.” Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Blocking is not guaranteed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@JJMC89: It does sound more intimidating, though.

What if it’s changed to “may result in editing privileges”? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 19:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

These templates are not used for intimidation. That change doesn't make any sense. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You’re right. I still think that “may” sounds better in this sentence, but it’s not a big deal, I suppose. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 23:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: I have changed "can" to "may" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 16:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fringe sources

This is not an edit request yet. After doing this revert I had a hard time to determine what template to use among WP:WARN2. I could have used uw-pov (no mention that the source is unsuitable), uw-blog (but that's mostly for bios), uw-vandal (still not ideal), uw-advert, uw-unsourced (there was a source, but a fringe one)... I ended up using uw-error1 because it asks to cite a reliable source. I guess that I'd have to use vandal2 if needing escalation. It's possible that a new set particularily for fringe, or for unreliable sources in particular, be a good idea. Input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 08:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that a separate 'the source you cited is unreliable' set of user warnings is needed for cases like this. --Danski454 (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Can a user warning really practically cover all the common cases that make sources unreliable? There are a lot of them. It probably makes more sense to leave a hand-typed note on the person's talk page explaining why the particular source they chose is unreliable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

True. —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Uw-afcaddition vs. Uw-draftmoved

What is the functional difference between {{Uw-draftmoved}} from 2015 that WP:DRAFTIFY makes use of, and {{Uw-afcaddition}} from 2016? Courtesy ping (Anarchyte—Mr. Stradivarius), Sam Sailor 07:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: {{Uw-draftmoved}} is to tell someone who submitted their draft with an AfC tag in the wrong namespace that it has been moved to "Draft:Name". {{uw-afcaddition}} is to tell users that their draft has been added to the AfC procedure by someone else as they believe it'd help them (new users making their first articles, etc). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Sam Sailor 07:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I've had a look at the nine instances I could find of Uw-afcaddition insource. All those drafts are now redlinked. Could you clarify when Uw-afcaddition is used? Is it when you find a draft in ns:118 that is missing {{AFC submission}} and you add it with appropriate |ts= and |u= or what? Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Not sure what "ns:118" means. The template is used when a draft made by someone else (usually a new user) has {{AFC submission/draft}} added to it by someone other than the creator, if that makes sense. When I used to use it, I added it after an unfinished article made by a really new user had been moved from mainspace to draftspace when I it's best that they receive feedback. You can see the original discussion here. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte:Thanks for the clarification, I did read the 2016 discussion. Ns:118 = draft space. So, Uw-afcaddition is the ut notification after you have manually done what User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js does semi-automatically, is that correct? Sam Sailor 08:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Yes. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Sam Sailor 08:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Right, but ... then we have {{Uw-articletodraft}}, and that sounds like the one to use when moving an undersourced article to draft space and manually leaving the new editor a notification. Which means {{uw-afcaddition}} is for drafts in draft space where you add {{subst:AFC draft|username of new editor}} on behalf of the new editor or you fix a subst:submit error by addition of {{subst:submit|username to submit as}} and then you notify them with {{uw-afcaddition}}, right? Sam Sailor 16:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Yup, I believe so. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather strange Draft UW template at AFC

I have just declined Draft:Template:Uw-under13 as there is no indication that such a template is wanted. The message (bizarrely imho) talk of reverting edits simply because the contributor is thought to be younger than 13 years. AFAIK WP has never had an age restriction for editors. If such a template were to be seriously suggested I would be inclined to strongly oppose its creation. If it were actually used it might well violate WP:OUTING and in fact lead to exactly the problems that WP:YOUNG warn about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Deprecating Uw-patrolled

Template:Uw-patrolled is a template from before the new pages reviewer user right, which prevents new editors from marking pages as patrolled. I would recommend that we remove this template from the project or reword it to advise users to apply for the right at WP:PERM (the former being preferred). --Danski454 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Moved from Template talk:Uw-editsummary2

Just posted at comment about this template at WT:ES, (see here). Thanks - wolf 14:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

uw-subtle3

I have created a level 3 template for subtle vandalism. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at Article, your edits will be considered vandalism and you may be blocked from editing.

welcome-coi-candidate

Quite a long time ago I created User:Ivanvector/Template:welcome-coi-candidate, a welcome template for new accounts editing election articles which appear by their usernames or edits to be candidates in the election, with useful links and advice to consult the conflicts of interest guidelines. I've found it's become useful again lately and added some switches to it, and I'd appreciate any feedback on it before possibly promoting it to the main template namespace. Obviously I need to add documentation, but any advice is appreciated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

{{uw-spamublock}} {{x1}}

Maybe make a name for {{x1}}? 83.31.83.119 (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)