Jump to content

Template talk:AfC decline

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:Afc decline)

Automatic delivery of Template:Afc decline

[edit]

The following three posts are reposted from here:

As part of my WP:NPP efforts, I have been substituting Template:AFC submission/submit into AFC pages to complete the final submission step that the article creators forgot to do. This has resulted in my incorrectly receiving the Template:Afc decline notice. See my talk page.[1] I understand that this notification is delivered automatically.[2] Can you change the automatic delivery of Template:Afc decline so that it is delivered to the AFC submission page creator. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but I think it's all part of the AFC script I installed: importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js');. Bejinhan talks 10:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin (MSGJ · talk) provided the answer on my talk page. On substituting Template:AFC submission/submit, the template adds the name of the template poster to the |u= parameter. See, for example, these posts In the future, I will change the u parameter to be the username of the author rather than my username after I post the template. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sig parameter doesn't work

[edit]

At least, you still get a signature if you use sig=no. Mangoe (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording and color

[edit]

I've changed the template wording and colour; my goodness, the 'thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia' box was black and gloomy. --Gryllida (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong draft location

[edit]

This is the second time I've corrected the link to the draft provided by this template. In each case, the link was to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/X/sandbox when it should have been User:X/sandbox. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have lost count of the number of times when I have corrected similar instances, and there are presumably vast numbers more which have not been corrected. I will put a note on the template's /doc page, but it would be handy if the gurus who can cope with the code could correct this vulnerability of the template. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The coding of the template also needs to be changed so that it works for the (relatively) new "Draft" namespace, but I am afraid I don't have the skills to do that.--ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, @Largoplazo, David Biddulph, and Ukexpat: I've made a change to the template, and it should work flawlessly unless someone is using a local copy of an old version of the reviewing script. This was a phased process, and I think that is ready for the final stage we are at now. Please let me know right away via email if necessary if there are any issues that arise. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you! I'll keep my eyes open to see how things are looking. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wording change

[edit]

I'd like to remove the links to the help desk and the "reviewer's talk page" from this template. Both of those links are already in Template:Afc submission.

The issue is that we have a continual flood of new editors who ask at the AfC help desk why their submission was declined, after the reviewer already selected a reason and likely provided comments. Unless there's opposition to this change I'm going to be bold shortly. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose this on the surface, but am about to pass out. There are multiple links to the help desk and always have been. I'm not convinced removing any of them now would be a good idea. The fundamental issue is apparently our decline reasons aren't clear enough or reviers' aren't taking the time to leave a detailed comment with the decline (I'm guilty of this too). The flood is more likely due to the backlog drive, in which I think we made some good progress getting the submission count under control. We get 200-400 submissions per day we figured, so we're holding at about a days worth atm. I'd be happy to discuss it more tomorrow when I'm awake. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, Chris, I've switched the order of the links and switched that to being the bold option so that attempting to contact the reviewer first is more obvious. I've also removed the line about making sure to link to the draft since both of those links preload the {{Lafc}} template and autolink the draft for them. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris, I've also edited the declined template that goes on the draft to similarly try and funnel more questions directly to the reviewer than to the help desk. Do you think these things will sufficiently reduce the "flood" of new questions? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Technical 13: I appreciate your help with this but no, I didn't want to divert traffic from the help desk to the reviewers. The editors will probably have to wait longer for an answer from the reviewer than from the aggregate at the help desk. I want the editors to read the applicable guidelines for themselves. I think what's happening is that drafts get declined, the message placed on the editor's talk page only tells them about the declination but doesn't tell them why. They don't look at the draft to find out, the user clicks a link to ask and complain. I intend to remove those links so they are forced to go to the draft and ideally read it before they click on a link there (which they'll inevitably do). Chris Troutman (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is in the notification template that is placed on the submitter's talk page. It does not explicitly COMMAND the submitter to go to their draft article and READ THE PINK BOX!!!!! The Teahouse invitation also tells the reader to bitch at the reviewer rather than first READ THE PINK BOX!!!!! and only if you don't understand what is said IN THE PINK BOX!!!!! you're welcome to ask at the AFC Help Deskor the Teahouse. I would actually prefer that all actual help questions are channeled to the help desk or Teahouse rather than making my personal talk page the first port of call. But first tell the submitter to READ THE PINK BOX!!!!! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger, what I'm asking is what if the contents of THE PINK BOX (why are we SHOUTing THE PINK BOX?) we leave on the user's talk page holds the same information as the pink box on the draft? That would make it so they have to read the contents of the box. That's what I'm asking... :) I'll admit, I don't see a lot of the resolutions of the questions on the Help Desk, do we get a lot of replies to resolved issues like "Oh, that's what it says in the pink box on the draft, I should have looked at that first because it makes sense"? Those are really the only people this kind of fix would help, the rest of them are there because they are lazy and don't want to follow the links in the pink box to understand what the linked words mean, they have a massive language barrier and don't understand what to do, or are just trying to convince us their paid advertisement is a good article for the encyclopedia to have... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Technical 13, we probably can't do much for the willfully ignorant. If it's an option to put the decline reason on the user's talk page, that would help. I've noticed that most of these new editors hadn't been welcomed before, either, so if we could put verbiage to caution the reader to read WP:FIRST before coming to the help desk that might help. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting... Adding the decline reason is certainly doable... Is there a specific "yfa" welcome template that might be appropriate to add to the top of the page as well if there's no welcome? Hrmmm. You got me thinking about how to make that whole interaction my newb friendly... Theo won't likely be around much for a bit, and as such I expect to being the one stuck fixing bugs and adding features to the script... let me put some thought into these things for a few days... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the decline reason to the talk page notification

[edit]

Oppose removing the links. Support placing the help desk link before the link to the reviewer's talk page (if the reviewer is away, there may still be people patrolling the help desk). Strongly support adding the decline reason to the talk page notification. In fact, I asked for this probably over a year ago. DGG also referenced this in his in-depth analysis of AfC inconsistencies (also about a year ago). Bellerophon talk to me 06:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as Bellerophon. This are very basic obvious changes that should have been made long ago. They are technically trivial. Help links are needed. They should go at the end. The help desk link should go first, because in practice the help desk is much more likely to give a useful response than the reviewer, and ithen other people can se it also. There are so many people who don;t actually read the template that the full explanation should be given. Based on their questions, possibly about 1/3 of the people are not going to see the reason. Many of them understand once they do read it, so we would cut down on unnecessary questions by giving it straight out. IWhen I place a template, I usually change the template to read . has not been accepted. Here's why: followed by the reason in bold.
One caution. All of this, including the welcome, should be expressed as succinctly as possible. People don't actually read long templates. When you've got a preliminary wording, I'd like to see it. Based on prior experience, I will be able to remove 25% of the words. without changing the meaning or loosing friendliness. DGG ( talk ) 10:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please add the decline reason to the talk page message. It is bizarre to expect a new user to go somewhere else to find out what the decline reason is - no doubt many people think they are supposed to go to help desk to find out. It would also be nice for the AfC helper script to add a welcome template to the user talk if creating the page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if they got the whole thing on their talk, including comments that the script puts outside the decline template. Gigs (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gigs's idea is great. If those reviewer comments could be transcluded onto the author's talk page, I think that would stop a lot of the foolishness we see at the help desk. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: I have TE and will add parameters for the decline reason and comments to the template. APerson (talk!) 17:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather edit the template from a device that isn't a phone (to reduce the chance of errors), so I'll be able to make the edit in around an hour and a half. APerson (talk!) 20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I've updated the sandbox version of the template to display the reason. At the moment, the template will just take the exact same text that appears inside the pink box and put it with the regular text on the submitter's talk page. I've added a test substitution on my sandbox. DGG (since you said you wanted to see the new wording), does this look okay or would you prefer if we came up with a parallel set of personalized texts for each decline reason (e.g. "Your template was declined because...")? APerson (talk!) 21:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly delighted to see the improved version.
I see this template repeats the prebuilt reasons. I do not see that it also includes whatever the reviewer may have added or substituted, but perhaps I missed it in the code. If it is not there, I'm not however sure whether it would be feasible to do it within the basic structure of the template--I'm no expert on templates, but at first glance it might require a rather complicated transclusion of the text added, or something even more involved.
If it could be done, I would consider it very highly desirable, partly because I would deprecate the use of the prebuilt reasons in all cases where there is reason to actually expect improvement. But unless it is after all a trivial matter to fix, we should make the proposed change nevertheless as a first step, and do it as soon as possible, rather than wait until we figure it out, because this would still be a very great improvement over the current situation.
There's a possible format improvement. Before giving the reason it should say something like Here's why: , followed perhaps by a line break and an indent. (I do this when I modify the placed notice, which I usually do. -- I also put the reason in bold) The purpose of this is to highlight the reason.
Additionally, the underline should be for the whole phrase "when they have been resolved." not just the word "resolved"
FWIW, the links to the help desk & the reviewers talk page are essential even with the improved template. Remember, we are almost always dealing with beginners. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too am truly delighted to see these changes finally enacted. @APerson: Thank you for doing this. I concur with DGG that the actual text concerning the reason for the decline is not sufficiently distinct from the general blather of the template. Some sort of formatting to separate the two is certainly needed. Personally, I find the grey box used in Template:AFC submission/declined to be quite neat; although, I am unsure if its inclusion here is plausible from a formatting perspective. Also, the green box with "Thank you for your contributions" overspills into the template text for me. That should be fixed, or, even better, remove the thank you box altogether. I have a general aversion to reckless thank you messages. Particularly where we are thanking people for introducing attack pages or copyright violations. Bellerophon talk to me 09:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bellerophon, I've just removed the green box. It turns out that it is incredibly simple to produce the gray box (just {{divbox|gray|text}}), so I've added that as well. The most recent test can be found here; I agree that the gray box looks much nicer. APerson (talk!) 22:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just RFPP'd the template, since it's very widely used. APerson (talk!) 00:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With DGG's proposed formatting change, the newest test is here. APerson (talk!) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@APerson: that looks much better. Clearly laid out, orderly and succinct. Bellerophon talk to me 10:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the wording slightly to direct contributors to check the submission for additional comments. Bellerophon talk to me 10:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy the sandbox version to the main version now, if nobody objects. APerson (talk!) 11:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
still a few problems.
"Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission" makes sense only if there are additional comments,which is less than half the time. This will remain a problem until we find a way of incorporating them in the notice. Perhaps,for now "Please read any additional comments ..."
2) Instead of
If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:Sandbox.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Combine.
to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sandbox, and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
OK? DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG:  Fixed here in template sandbox, will test in user space sandbox soon. APerson (talk!) 00:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found an error: somehow the template is substituting the entire switch statement in {{AFC submission/comments}}. APerson (talk!) 03:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@APerson: Have you managed to resolve this error yet? I'm not exactly sure what the error you are describing is? Bellerophon talk to me 08:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bellerophon, yes, I've fixed it. After testing the sandbox version, I have copied the sandbox version over to the main version. Now, all that remains is to make the helper script work with the newly available parameter. APerson (talk!) 13:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bellerophon, DGG, Technical 13, Chris troutman, and Dodger67:  Done See here, where I declined a submission with the reason. APerson (talk!) 00:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very latest code, which (as of this post) is the only way to decline submissions with a reason, is available at User:APerson/afch-dev.js. To import it, put importScript('User:APerson/afch-dev.js'); // [[User:APerson/afch-dev.js]] on your common.js. APerson (talk!) 00:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another test can be found here. APerson (talk!) 14:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@APerson: Thank you for your perseverance with this; I've left a present on your talk. Just out of curiosity is your script code based on AfC Helper Script Beta or the stable script? I'm just wandering if it contains support for reviewing redirects and cats at WP:AFC/R? Bellerophon talk to me 19:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bellerophon, the version in my userspace is the latest build of the "rewrite" version of AFCH. Therefore, its AFC/R functionality should be identical to the "regular" rewrite version. I wouldn't know anything about this, as I've never touched anything at AFC/R. APerson (talk!) 01:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@APerson: The currently implementation seems to be broken and not substituting properly. Every decline reason ends up in the source of the talk page, and custom reasons just show up as {{{2}}} (see [3] for an example). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does Template:AFC submission/comments need to be modified to start with "{{SAFESUBST:#switch" instead of just "{{#switch"? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Stop adding User Talk pages to "Category:AfC submissions declined as..."?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Automatic or template addition should be deprecated, according to this limited discussion. There is insufficient input to make a confident determination: an alternative proposal with a workaround for genuine drafts in IP space, would probably find broader support. For now, though, it seems best to suppress the category on User Talk (I guess this does not stop people adding it manually where justified). Guy (Help!) 13:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A side effect of substing the decline reason from {{AFC submission/comments}} to the talk page notification is that the talk pages are now getting included in the "Category:AfC submissions declined as..." categories (since inclusion in those categories was done by {{AFC submission/comments}}. Was this the intention, or an unintended side effect? Since the "User Talk" namespace isn't a valid location for Articles for Creation drafts (at least, it's not recognized by WP:AFCH), should {{AFC submission/comments}} be modified to exclude the "Category:AfC submissions declined as..." categories when used in the "User Talk" namespace? Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support excluding categories when the template is used in the User Talk namespace. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 23:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there is no consensus to prohibit IP editors from making new drafts in User_talk and submitting those drafts for review. Unless there is a consensus to require IPs to create an account or a consensus to prohibit all users from writing user space drafts (user talk is still user space as far as I'm concerned), then there is no reason to disallow those drafts from being categorized like any other. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AFCH doesn't support drafts in User Talk:, which I assume came from a consensus at some point. I've certainly never seen any objection to the fact that AFCH only works in namespaces 2, 4, 5, and 118 (and that AFCBuddy only works on the 0, 4 and 5 namespaces). It's a bit of a non-issue anyway, as a reviewer would likely use the big blue button in {{AFC submission}} to move a User Talk: draft, if one existed, to the Draft: namespace before declining anyway to enable the tool (and the Draft: namespace is the preferred location for AfC drafts). However, if there is a strong feeling that drafts should be allowed in User Talk, {{Afc decline}} could instead be modified to pass a talk=yes parameter to {{AFC submission/comments}} to prevent the categories from showing. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assume wrong that there was a consensus to disallow editors from creating drafts in 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 118, 828, or 829. Also, the version I use (in greasemonkey on my local machine for WP:BEANS reason since it is hacked to not care if I'm on the "approved" list of reviewers) works in all namespaces. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was consensus at [4] and [5] that the Draft namespace is the preferred location for drafts, so even if an IP has a burning desire to create a userspace draft and creates one in User Talk (which goes against WP:OWNTALK), that draft should still be moved to Draft: before being categorized anyway. However, this probably isn't the right venue to have this debate, so I went ahead and modified {{Afc decline}} to pass cat=no to {{AFC submission/comments}} and added support to the AFC submission/comments sandbox here. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're saying that userspace drafts are prohibited by that consensus, then that consensus conflicts with Help:Userspace draft which is a much larger consensus and as such nullifies your consensus as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. That said, there is no consensus against creating a userspace draft and since IPs can only create new pages in talk spaces, then User_talk for an IP is a valid Userspace draft. Anything else is a violation of the pillar that says anyone can edit. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a problem. It adds needless clutter, but we do need to do something to keep track off rafts submitted in user space. They should be moved, but they are not always moved. Perhaps we need a script to move them automatically upon submission? DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removing the categories based on the namespace. I thought about Technical 13's argument, and undoubtedly someone will come along and move IP-created user-talk-space drafts to draftspace anyway. APerson (talk!) 01:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Add decline reason from {{AFC submission/comments|cv}} for copyvios?

[edit]

The message from {{AFC submission/comments|cv}} is a lot more helpful than the current message left if the cv= parameter is set to yes. I worked up a version in the sandbox that includes the appropriate message at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Afc_decline/sandbox&oldid=650813803 (I also modified the template in the sandbox to detect reason=cv as equivalent to cv=yes and cleaned up the code a bit). Any objections? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done With no objections for a week, I went ahead and made the changes. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be aware...

[edit]

FYI, {{NSFW}} is deprecated and replaced by {{UFW}}. Please see the page move discussion for more info. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion instructions

[edit]

Do we need to include information about deleting a draft. It's wordy and I think takes the posting over the threshold where some authors will see it as a wall of text to be ignored.

Shortening the message by including a link to a page with instructions might be an alternative but I haven't found concise instructions for how to do this elsewhere on any Help: pages and I haven't found a great place to add such instructions.

I suspect that this delete option is rarely used and so the message is of little benefit. Is there a way do determine how many drafts are deleted by their authors? ~Kvng (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng, I absolutely agree (3 years later). Old unsubmitted drafts can just wait for G13 to come round. We have very little instructional real estate, and what we have should be dedicated to teaching things new editors actually struggle with (notability and sourcing).
If there aren't any objections, I'd like to remove the wordy second bullet point
  • If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
The third bullet point (If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.), could be deleted too, but has at least some function (preventing confusion & questions when people come back after 6 months). Femke (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no opposition after three years, I've removed it. Primefac (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers

[edit]

I added the word "volunteer" to this template. I'm hoping that some targets of the paid-editing scams will notice this tiny clarification and remember that volunteers are involved if they're contacted for payment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see this until after I reverted your edit. I get the intention, but the way it ends up being worded makes it sound like someone might be able to go "higher up the food chain" so to speak, maybe to a "staff member" or other "paid position". I don't necessarily disagree that we should somehow imply that we're not being paid to do this, but I don't think that was it. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, do you think it would do better with its own sentence? We could stick something like "The Articles for Creation process is entirely run by volunteers" or "Like the rest of Wikipedia's editors, the person reviewing your article is a volunteer." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having slept on it, do we need to say anything about volunteers? This is just a note about the decline and how to proceed. I guess, reading through the entire notice box, I don't really see how or why we would need to smush it in. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with the paid-editing scam is that people who receive this specific notice don't realize that paid editors are anathema. I thought that saying something about volunteers might help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable. I've cross-posted to WT:AFC for some more opinions. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is late in the process to try and raise awareness of WP:PAID and doing so by talking about volunteers is indirect. I have reviewed the messages and don't see any needed improvements at this time. ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kvng, I think that this is the perfect moment to explain about PAID. Specifically, imagine this:
  • I write an article about something that is important to me.
  • You decline it (for good reason).
  • A paid scammer notices (the list of which articles get declined is public, right? That means that scammers can see your actions) and e-mails me: "For a fee, I can get your important article into Wikipedia..."
I think that this template is the best place to warn the good-faith newbie about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, how does adding volunteer to the decline message stop this from happening? ~Kvng (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It won't unfortunately. Not a single solution put forward by any administrator or group, who is involved tackling the UPE problem will fix it. The only solution that will fix it, is the wholesale deletion of their work and this is probably unpalatable to the WMF, in their mad dash for content. At some point in future, that I don't think that we have reached yet but is fast approaching; is there will be more paid article than there is COI free, volunteer written articles. Future historian will look upon this time as both a golden age of volunteer led, coi free, creation, and in large part a drastic failure on us to act and missed opportunity. scope_creepTalk 16:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, the point here is to alert the innocent volunteer newbie to the existence of the paid scammers. The articles I'm thinking about aren't written by the paid scammers. They're written by people who might be tricked by the paid scammers into believing that Wikipedia is supposed to be a pay-to-publish service. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there evidence for it? scope_creepTalk 17:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, please read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We'll need to do something different than what you've proposed to address this scam. Maybe a Beware of scams! message with link to the lowdown on these schemes. If warning is to be given, it should also be given earlier in the AfC process. ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A warning is theoretically given earlier in the process, except that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, and for the few people who do happen to read the directions, they definitely won't remember it a couple of months later, when it matters.
Maybe 'Beware of scams!" with a link to the Scam warning page would be a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template bug: notice placed on user redirect page

[edit]
Tracked in github.com
Issue #90

The template is placing notices on redirect pages. See for example, User talk:MaitreyaVaruna. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bug with the template, it's an issue with AFCH. If I remember correctly, it's a known issue that is being worked on. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And I see that the AFCH issue goes back to 2018. Since templates are easier to change, maybe the template could be temporarily adjusted while the AFCH bug is outstanding, and emit a big red warning if it was about to be placed on a redirect page to alert the reviewer to the problem, who could then decide what to do instead? Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how the script works. From the draft page you never even look at the user talk - click a few buttons and the script edits all of the other pages. A warning provided by this template would do no good. Primefac (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I assumed it was more like AWB, where you get to see what it's doing/about to do. Seems a bit too "independent" for a script that signs your name to something, but, out of my bailiwick. Thank you for the explanations, that helps me understand what's going on. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further suggestions for change

[edit]

The banner is still quite big and possibly intimidating, especially if the reviewer leaves a message (see example). I'd like to make the following changes.

  1. Remove the initial exclamation mark, which feels off given we're declining
  2. Can the text "The comment the reviewer left was:" be replaced by a Speech balloon icon within the frame of the reviewer comment?
  3. Remove "Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer." as these comments are copied into the decline message.
  4. Do we still need the spam warning? If so, it needs to be reworded, as the current link is an WP:EASTEREGG. If needed, suggest we change the text from "or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission" to "or if you may have been the victim of a scam"

Femke (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I've converted your bullets to a numbered list, primarily for referencing purposes. If this is a problem, feel free to convert them back. #1, not opposed. #2, no; text is always better than images. #3, no, because there have been times I have left a decline comment and an additional comment, usually when I forget something or there is something minor that isn't directly related to the decline itself (for example, "also, please make sure you remove ELINKS"). #4 absolutely yes to keeping (hang around IRC for a few days and it's something we deal with a lot). I also don't see it as an EGG violation, because there are a lot of "things" at the target page that all fall under the category of "untoward behaviour". Primefac (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply. #2: What about removing the sentence and adding a bolded Comment: in the frame? #4: I associate the words untoward behaviour with harassment / bullying. I imagine people who consider their reviewers rude or unresponsive are quite likely to click on that link, even if some people that have been contacted by scammers may click on it too. Furthermore, the word 'untoward' is too difficult, given the large amount of non-native speakers that submit drafts. I'm also okay with the original wording (beware of scams).. Femke (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the single sentence need to be replaced by a single word? Primefac (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the length of the decline message is a bit intimidating for newer users, and every small bit to change that helps. Femke (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:AfC_decline&oldid=1198096106"