Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

Uw-wrongreview

I stumbled across Uw-wrongview the other day. It's a template that warns pending changes reviewers they made a mistake. [1] It seems a little harsh. It might be worth toning down the language. Maybe something like this.

Information icon Hello, I'm Example. I wanted to let you know that your recent pending changes review to Test seems to violate our guidelines. Here is more info on our criteria for reviewing. Please try to follow our guidelines as closely as possible. If you have questions, just ask me on my talk page. Thanks. ~~~~

Thoughts? If there's consensus, maybe I'll edit the template. Thanks.

cc: @Berrely, Noyster, and KGirlTrucker81: –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Howdy folks. Any objections to me making uw-copyright1, uw-copyright2, etc. to go along with uw-copyright? I feel uw-copyright is way too strongly worded for a first warning. It is very WP:BITE. I think it'd be simplest to leave uw-copyright in place, so that it doesn't interfere with RedWarn, Twinkle, etc. So these templates would be in addition to uw-copyright. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

{{uw-copyright-new}} is the non WP:BITEy version. Copyright violation is a bright-line problem which doesn't lend itself to the 4 steps warning process. Cabayi (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: I disagree with making Template:uw-copyright a multi-level template because it is a single-level warning. Multiple violations should result in a block. Opal|zukor(discuss) 17:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This isn't the first time someone has proposed this, but it's always been shot down, for good reason. Copyright violations are serious enough that, however well-intentioned, cannot be allowed to stand (or recur) while we go through several steps of warnings. There should be only one level of warning here, and notwithstanding WP:BITE it needs to be firmly worded so as to stress the seriousness of the situation. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added {{Uw-copyright-new}} to the list of see alsos in {{Uw-copyright}}'s documentation. CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

Please change the use of the word "vandalism" in Template:Uw-test3 to "disruptive editing", as the vandalism policy specifically excludes tests. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Policy says Editing tests are considered vandalism only when a user continues to make test edits despite receiving numerous warnings. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Change to:

Extended content
{{{icon|[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]}}} Hello, I'm <includeonly>[[User:{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:REVISIONUSER}}|{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:REVISIONUSER}}]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[User:Example|Example]]</noinclude>. I noticed that you {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{diff|}}}|[{{{diff}}} made a comment]|made a comment}} {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|on the page [[:{{{1}}}]]}} that didn't seem very [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]]. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:<includeonly>{{sub<noinclude></noinclude>st:REVISIONUSER}}</includeonly><noinclude>Jimbo Wales</noinclude>|my talk page]]. {{{2|Thank you.}}} <noinclude>
{{Templatesnotice|series = uw-npa|max = 4im|extra usage=* You can add an optional <code>diff=</code> parameter to specify the URL of the edit containing the personal attack.}}
</noinclude>

Reason: Some comments are not removed due to necessity in reports at places like ANI and AN3. Firestar464 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Firestar464:  altered; the phrase "so it has been removed" has been changed to "so it may have been removed". Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 08:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"Hover over the curly braces to see a summary of the contents."

In the template listings, each chunk of templates is prefixed by this in small green text: "Hover over the curly braces to see a summary of the contents."

As far as I can see only {{tltts}} allows this behavior, but many entries use {{tltt}} instead where no such tooltip is generated. Anyone knows what gives? CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In August, I proposed the removal of tltts in favor of an accessible solution, at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk_namespace/Archive 17#Accessibility improvements. I can't speak to the origin of the inconsistency, but any expansion of the use of tltts should be mindful of its inaccessibility and that a better solution should be sought. --Bsherr (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me suggest two solutions: either implement the tooltips for all, not just some, entries (possibly in an accessible way) or remove the little green text :) CapnZapp (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on uw-vandalism1

I wish to request an alteration of {{uw-vandalism1}} to: "Hello, I'm Opalzukor. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks." The text comes from {{uw-disruptive1}} and links to policies and the welcome page. The source code for the text to be added is: 

Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]. You can find information about these at our [[Help:Getting started|welcome page]] which also provides further information about [[Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia|contributing constructively to this encyclopedia]].

Thanks for your time. Opal|zukor(discuss) 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-vandalism1 TFD closed as no consensus

Template:Uw-vandalism1 was recently nominated for merging here and later relisted and closed here.

However, it was closed as no consensus which doesn't seem representative for a simple yes/no question. It wasn't that we couldn't agree in which direction to go. There were only one suggestion - to merge and this was substantially opposed. The community clearly saw value in retaining the template - and the TfD should thus have been closed as keep.

Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1) Reword {{Uw-copyright-new}} to not welcome the user, since I fail to see the difference between Template:Uw-copyright-new and Template:Welcome-copyright. As I understand it, Uw-copyright-new is supposed to be a less WP:BITEy version of {{Uw-copyright}}, while {{Welcome-copyright}} is a welcome template that also just happens to send a similarly non-bitey message on copyright?

2) merge/move Template talk:Uw-copyright-new here. That is, make the talk page of the template redirect here, just like Template talk:Uw-copyright does.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

1)  Done CapnZapp (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Consolidating misleading edit summary warning templates

A year or so ago, I created {{uw-mislead1}} and {{uw-mislead2}}, a mistake since I had not come across {{uw-wrongsummary}}, of which it is a duplicate. InvalidOS later created {{uw-mislead3}}, and I just now discovered that {{Uw-wrongsummary-strong}} also exists. I proposed merging them a few months ago after discovering the duplication, but the discussion got a little muddled because there was some question about whether it should be a multi-level or single-level (we didn't know about the -strong version at the time), and closer Primefac opted to declare no consensus rather than do a bartender's close.

Can we figure out what we want to do with these templates and consolidate them? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that this warning will be given either in addition to or instead of a more germane warning. For example, for a user who vandalizes a page and tries to hide it with an innocent-looking edit summary, the user should simply be given a uw-vandalismX warning, as the misleading edit summary goes without saying. I also don't think it is helpful for a user to receive two user warnings at the same time. For example, for a user who adds inappropriately biased content and tries to hide it with an innocent-looking edit summary, I think it's superfluous to give the user a uw-npovX warning and a warning about the misleading edit summary simultaneously. Rather (and this applies to the former example too), the misleading edit summary can be used as evidence of a lack of good faith to start with a stronger warning, like uw-npov3. So, what's left is a situation in which the user has made an otherwise fine contribution, but given a misleading edit summary, and I am speculating that will very often be an "assume good faith" situation, meaning a kindly worded single-level warning may be sufficient. However, if there is anecdotal evidence of escalating situations with misleading edit summaries, I am open to a multi-level warning. --Bsherr (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, that's a very reasonable concern, and I agree that if a vandal uses an inappropriate summary, it's better to just go with a strong vandalism warning by itself. In my experience, this is a warning that isn't so much used for vandals as it is for at least mediumly experienced editors who want to add something that they know will be controversial, so to avoid scrutiny they use a misleading summary. The edit itself isn't worthy of a warning because it's just bold, but the summary is a problem and indicates an issue that could escalate toward ANI, etc. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Yup, I can imagine that. But, per WP:BRD, there's going to be a talk page discussion, so would it be inevitable that an inappropriate edit summary would be addressed personally anyway? Or, couldn't uw-disruptiveX be used appropriately for such a situation? --Bsherr (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, it's generally better to address user conduct issues on a user page, rather than article talk pages. There's inevitably some mixing, so in some situations it might be addressed at the article talk page, but in many I think it's appropriate to have this template available. {{uw-wrongsummary}} dates back to 2006, so there's clearly a desire for something to exist here; the main question I'm hoping to sort out is whether it ought to be multi-level or not. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: So perhaps we are looking at a level 1-3 series being best, then. Do you think there is redundancy between uw-misleadX and uw-besX? --Bsherr (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, interesting; I hadn't come across {{uw-bes1}} etc. (it took me a minute to get that it stands for "bad edit summary") That template appears to be more for editors who write very uncivil things/attacks in their summaries, which is a somewhat different circumstance. I wonder whether it's necessary to have that template at all, since I'd think it'd be better to address the underlying behavior rather than the fact that it was done in an edit summary. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Uw-bes1 says appropriate, civil or otherwise constructive. Certainly civil invokes no personal attacks. I agree with you that this behavior would already be covered by uw-npaX, and that the need for a user warning dealing specifically with edit summaries is questionable. Appropriate and otherwise constructive are broad and ambiguous, but I think readily cover a misleading edit summary. So, the question is, which templates should be kept and which deleted? I think we agree that if uw-misleadX is kept, uw-besX should be deleted in favor of uw-misleadX and uw-npaX, and the two uw-wrongsummary templates deleted in favor of uw-misleadX. Unless there's anything else, I'll leave it there to see if there are other opinions. I think we're on the same page that the product of this discussion will be a consensus on which templates to take to TfD in a single nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bumping thread. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Carry on I encourage you two to boldly get on with it @Bsherr and Sdkb: - I agree there's far too many of these very similar templates, and trust you to delete just the right ones :) CapnZapp (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't feel comfortable going off of the informal consensus here yet given that the prior TfD could be seen as stronger. At this point, I've more than done my penance for accidentally creating a duplicate, and if others want it carried through they'll have to speak up enough to allow that to happen. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp, Bsherr, and Sdkb: I haven't been here for very many years, but was just curious how much things had changed. If you think there are a lot of templates now, here's a list of what we had to contend with when we started the whole uw- templates process back in 2007. Nice to see it was still hidden there. Khukri 17:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, I had forgotten about that list. Looks like I have a few signatures to add in the action column. :-) Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Khukri! --Bsherr (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-attack

Template:Uw-attack has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Uw-spamblock" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Uw-spamblock. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Template:Uw-spamblock until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 December 2020

Please change "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia." to "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without adequate explanation." (Please do not make it bold, I added that for emphasis.) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 December 2020

{{{icon|[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]}}} Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] while interacting with other editors{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}|, which you did not do on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. If you happen to be new here, please take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{{2|Thank you.}}}

Extended content


Reason: Sometimes, even experienced editors may need to be templated regarding this. However, for them, it would be very strange to receive a message regarding taking a look at the welcome page. Therefore, I propose editing the second sentence to be more directed at newcomers so as to make it less awkward. Firestar464 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Firestar464:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: @Firestar464: Hmm, I'm not sure this was a good change, to be honest. Giving an experienced user any kind of level-1 template will always be odd and can seem a bit patronising, since they all start with "Welcome to Wikipedia!". Addressing an experienced editor with a "we would like you to...", where "we" is the collective of Wikipedia editors, is also pretty supercilious, not to mention "everybody is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia"! In fact, the only reason to choose any level-1 template rather than a level-2 or an individualised note is surely to welcome new users who can't be expected to know Wikipedia policies, so I don't think "if you happen to be new" is an improvement. Users who get this template will be new in almost every case, and if there are exceptions, the editor placing the notice can always go in and edit it after it's posted, and should edit a lot more than just the "welcome page" sentence. In the case of AGF, I think it is unlikely (though not impossible) that an experienced editor will never have heard of it. I mean, AGF is not like the more obscure points of the Manual of Style – it's invoked all the time! A quick note on the lines of "To me, your edit here [diff] doesn't look like you were assuming good faith" will almost certainly be more helpful than a templated message, even if that editor doesn't have any previous AGF warnings on their talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
To editor Bonadea: thank you! On reflection, it would seem that {{Uw-agf1}} should be used only for new, inexperienced editors and {{Uw-agf2}} used when a more experienced editor forgets to AGF. I could be wrong, so waiting on Firestar464 for further guidance. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
To editor Bonadea: the edit has been undone pending more input. Perhaps the WikiProject info page could use clarification on this issue? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To editors Bonadea and Firestar464: tried some new wording in the sandbox, and comparisons can be found on the test cases page. Please let me know your thoughts, and feel free to improve the wording in the sandbox where needed. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The sandbox has gone "live" this date. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

How to appropriately warn a vandal with multiple edits.

If a vandal made 4 vandalism edits. should you give.

  1. Onelevel #1 warning or
  2. four level #1 warning or
  3. Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 warning? --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
More context needed. Four edits on the same article, or on different articles? Were they reverted at all? Are they editing rapidly? That said, I believe somewhere it's mentioned that #1 is typically assumes good faith, #2 is a neutral assumption, and #3 and up are assuming they're deliberately editing in poor faith. DonIago (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Doniago, The question I had in mind was about different articles. No they were not reverted at all. 4 edits and stopped for a day. What is the commonly acceptable response among the 3 options that I listed above ?
(The question is remotely related to this User talk:YOGAMAYEE, their edits are not vandalism but poorly sourced to a blog, may be they are advertising their blog here. Although I have posted a few templates, but I wanted to be sure to choose the commonly acceptable response next time I come across such a case. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
If it's four edits to different articles within a short period of time, I'd likely give them a #1 if it's "maybe they don't realize they're committing vandalism" and a #2 if it's "they probably know this isn't really kosher" and a #3 if it's "there's no way they don't know this is vandalism". Whichever one it was, I'd only issue one of them though. I don't believe in giving an editor multiple warnings for multiple edits within a short period of time. Give them a fair chance to see one warning before applying another. DonIago (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I will follow the same next time I come across such a case. I think it will be helpful to document this advice somewhere on WP namespace so that users reading the page know what to do, instead of guessing one. Thanks a lot for taking out the time to respond to my query. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the compliment, but I have no idea how my advice would stand up against a more general consensus. Unfortunately no other editors have responded here thus far. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
All that advice appears to be sound about a subject that has gray areas and can be confusing at times. If put to consensus the advice from many editors would probably be "all over the map", kind of like when a large group of politicians try to get something done. Best to both of you this holiday season! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, I see. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can speak for myself and I am convinced by Doniago's choice of 1 template depending upon the severity. Giving one template also involves less work. Happy holidays to you too! Walrus Ji (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Paine! Season's Greetings to you as well! DonIago (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Doniago's advice matches what I've always done and what I believe to be usual practice. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly inappropriate icon for Template:Uw-agf-sock

I'm a bit puzzled as to why {{uw-agf-sock}} implies "assuming good faith", however uses the icon used for level three warnings — an icon used whenever assuming bad faith. Wouldn't it be more reasonable and less BITEy if we went with the usual File:Information orange.svg instead? Chlod (say hi!) 04:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd , seems more appropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Whoops. Accidentally forgot about this thread. Making the changes now. Thank you for the responses! Chlod (say hi!) 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced and plain wrong :)

When I use the {{uw-unsourced1}} template after reverting, I have trouble with the wording: "if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so." Generally a user has added or changed something that's clearly incorrect, and often there are existing sources that contradict it. Otherwise, I wouldn't revert it, but add "citation needed". I'd like to change it so that it gives more of an indication that there seems to be a problem with the information, and doesn't so strongly encourage re-adding it. I'll work on a suggestion for re-writing it - feedback is welcome. --IamNotU (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't you rather use {{uw-error1}} in such cases? Admittedly it also includes a solicitation to include a citation, but at least it specifies it should be to a reliable source. Even if you're certain no such sources exist, using the template encourages the editor to take the path of relying on sources, rather than adding what they "know" to be correct. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You're right that {{uw-error1}} sounds pretty good, but the problem is that that series of templates is about "Introducing deliberate factual errors", in other words bad faith, and {{uw-error2}} and the rest mention vandalism. What I'm talking about is good-faith edits in the sense that the person believes they're right and are helping Wikipedia, but they're putting something from their own knowledge that they're mistaken about. An example might be when people write in the "samosa" article that they originate in India, which is a common misperception. The problem isn't only that it's unsourced, but also that it's wrong, though not deliberately so. "Please cite a source and add it back" implies that the information is ok but it just needs a source, and might encourage them to find some unreliable recipe blog that says so. But "stop your vandalism" isn't right either. Neither really explain the problem. I think it should say something along the lines of "Please check the validity of the information you'd like to add. All content must be verifiable in a reliable, published source". I'd like to get across the idea that there's a good chance that there's a problem with the content, and probably they should not add it back. --IamNotU (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I've always taken "deliberate factual errors" to mean the edit was purposeful, not accidental, but still incorrect, and possibly good faith. Often this is indicated by their edit summary. I use this when someone is making a change they genuinely believe is correct, but it isn't, usually as determined by reliable sources. If this is what the warning means, it should be clarified. BilCat (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The type of edit you describe is what I'm talking about. Here's one I reverted just now: [2] - it has an edit summary that on the surface is reasonable, it's good-faith, but it's unambiguously wrong, and contradicts the cited source. I did use {{uw-error1}} in this case, but it doesn't fit well. If it escalates, {{uw-error2}} says "Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism", {{uw-error3}} says "If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information", and {{uw-error4}}, "the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information". So I think it's pretty clear that it's about deliberately adding information they know is incorrect. I use it sometimes for example if someone changes a sourced population figure from 2,135,000 to "20 millions" - any reasonable person would know that can't be correct. --IamNotU (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Bull in a china shop?

Is Template:Uw-bics an approved warning template? Seems a bit too "pointed". BilCat (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No, certainly not. It's so vague that it's unhelpful. I'd welcome a deletion discussion, renaming so it's clear that it's not an "approved" warning template, and perhaps a move to the author's own space if that's appropriate and possible. ElKevbo (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the links of this added to WP:WARN and Template:Single notice links. The template should be deleted. Train of Knowledge, you're correct that there are many users who do fit the description at WP:BICS, and you've made a reasonable summary of that article. However, telling this so directly to someone with a template would I think likely be taken as an insult. I don't think it would have a positive effect. There are certain essays that may be valuable, but editors are cautioned against utilizing them too freely. For example, WP:CIR is used often by admins in WP:ANI discussions, because by that time things have become very serious. But it has a warning: "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack." I think WP:BICS is in the same sort of category. Also, unlike WP:CIR, it's hardly ever linked to, which indicates that few people find it useful. There just isn't enough support for it to be made into a standard template. In the future, it would be good if you would make a proposal on this talk page for any new user warning templates, in order to get feedback before creating and linking them. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-bics

Template:Uw-bics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently many warning templates start with something like "Hi, I'm [[User:Example|Example]]". For users without userpages, this is a redlink (example), and might confuse the receiving user (or even tempt them to create it with vandalism). Instead, we could have the template produce "Hi, I'm [[User talk:Example|Example]]" if the userpage doesn't exist. Someone warning another user will almost always have a talk page (and if not, I'd still rather link to it than the userpage). Alternatively, we could disable the link entirely in this case. Thoughts? — The Earwig talk 23:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a link is needed at all. The message should be signed, which would include an appropriate link. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've thought the self-identification in the first sentence is redundant to the signature, but others thought it more friendly. I still support removing it altogether or, at least, "Hi." seems enough to me. But if we keep the self-identification, I do think it ought to be linked, which is typical of first references to usernames, and I would avoid the talk page link lest it tempt the recipient to use it, splitting the conversation between two talk pages. --Bsherr (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

proposal that DIFF number should be a mandatory field for all warnings

Given that warnings happen in response to at least one edit, I think it should be mandatory to include at least one diff number when warning people.

The Special:Diff/ command could be coded into the template, following the slash with the inputted number.

This would avoid when people are unclear about something when issuing warnings to others.

Like for example "you were rude on a talk page" would be more clear if someone only made one edit to the talk page, but less clear if they were making several replies to different parties: it would not be clear which of the replies is being called rude.

Would this be something difficult to incorporate?

An error message could be displayed if a diff number is not inserted, to encourage it's use.

This could encourage more responsible and useful warnings. WakandaQT (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I think it would be good to encourage people and make it easier to add diffs. But I don't support making them mandatory. I usually add diffs, but in some cases I don't want to because it's obvious and/or because the warning applies to several edits and I don't want to single one out. --IamNotU (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with above. Users should be encouraged to add diffs as it may at times be helpful, but making it mandatory could have a prohibitive effect. - wolf 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Hi. I would like to replace the part "account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site" with "account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site". I believe this as ithe original wording is very wordy, confusing, and grammatically wrong. Steve M (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Warning for good faith poor grammar?

Is there (or should there be) a polite template for situations where an editor makes ungrammatical copyedits in good faith, likely because English isn't their first language? {{uw-mos1}} doesn't quite cover it. I've noticed it a lot on articles with the {{copy edit}} template, where a new editor (often with an Indian username) makes inappropriate corrections to sentences they think look wrong. I assume this is because new users are somehow directed towards these pages and encouraged to fix them.

I sometimes give a polite thanks and a recommendation that they change their focus away from copyediting if they're not fluent in English, or consider editing their own language's Wikipedia, but a template would be quicker and more comprehensive. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lord Belbury, do you have a message in your mind? I can help create the template at least for you.
I believe writing a couple of lines would be easier than using the template. Also there is a question if you are really sure you want to template them and discourage them from trying to help? Walrus Ji (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any particular wording in mind, I just thought there might be one that already existed that covered good faith bad writing. I was assuming a friendly wording that wouldn't admonish and discourage the user, instead thanking them for their attempt to help, pointing out diplomatically that they were introducing incorrect grammar, politely suggesting they leave copyediting to others, etc. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to note, this ubiquitous problem is not by any means limited to our Indian editors; indeed, it's not even limited to non-Anglophone editors. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed something like this and I think there's actually something organized going on with certain articles that get on a list, and they're being used for English practice by some sort of school or continuing-education program that I suspect is in India or Pakistan, from some of the account names and edit contents. For example, look at Joxantonio Ormazabal - this is a rather obscure article about a deceased author of Basque childrens' books. But there are dozens and dozens of similar accounts that have edited it. About half of the edits are vandalism typical of bored students, the rest are attempting to do some constructive copy editing but rarely do... If you look at the other articles they edit, there's a network of them. They do seem to be related to articles that are marked as needing copy editing. I've just been reverting and fixing them in this article. The accounts never last more than a few days, so I don't normally even bother with warning templates. If this is what you're seeing then it seems like a template wouldn't accomplish a whole lot.
On the other hand, if I see people who are around for a while making unhelpful corrections, I'll try to take it up with them and explain the specific problems. In my experience you have to be very diplomatic - once in a while a person gets very offended if you suggest that their English isn't as good as they think it is. I'm not sure whether or not a generic template would be a good idea. Maybe. --IamNotU (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There was some talk at User_talk:RexxS#Attracting_incompetent_edits that suggested it might be a student book or training exercise that encourages people to visit Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit and find something, anything, to copyedit, on the assumption that copyediting can never be bad. I guess it's mostly harmless in that the copyedit template stays there, so if they make it worse (and some users seem to be applying automated grammar checkers without being fluent enough to realise that they're introducing mistakes) someone else will fix that in the future. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there's some kind of actual classroom situation. It comes in waves, there will be a flurry of activity, then suddenly stop. Also the fact that probably less than half are actually making an effort, while the rest are goofing off... I've seen a lot of classrooms like that! There may be some guide somewhere, but I don't think people are finding it independently, then going on with vandalism. Anyway, there's probably little that can be done about it, though I think I'll ask for page protection on Joxantonio Ormazabal if it starts up again - at the moment it's all quiet since the end of last year. --IamNotU (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

@Joefromrandb:, IamNotU, Lord Belbury, Please take a look at this well worded note by Prolix. I liked it and have added this into a template pack for WP:RW. You can install the tool RedWarn and this template pack if you want to use it as a template on user talk pages. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't use RedWarn. It seemed like something that might be common enough to merit a good faith {{uw-copyedit}} template. Reading Prolix's note, I think it's also worth suggesting that if the editor isn't fluent in English but wants to help the English Wikipedia, they could turn their attention to other tasks, like improving sourcing and images, looking for obvious errors in articles, or working on stub drafts of articles which are worth creating. Or that they could edit their own language's Wikipedia project, which they may not have been aware of. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Lord Belbury, you should try WP:RedWarn, I believe it is a fast and worthy successor to Twinkle. I use both. Your template is red linked. Your suggestions are good but they would be helpful on a case by case basis. I would not recommend adding it into the template. (On a side note, the target of Prolix's note is a sock known for poor English and frivolus edits.) Walrus Ji (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The note is nice, but I see some grammar errors in it. Actually no, just kidding! But you'd want to be careful about that! I do think it could maybe use simpler English. I think it would probably need some more work before being made into a standard template. It could be made into a draft or sandbox version, and see if it gets any support. --IamNotU (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
IamNotU, Can you suggest your improvements into Prolix's note as a draft at {{uw-grammar}}. I would incorporate them into the RW template I made. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Walrus Ji, the template's redlinked because I'm suggesting that it be created, so that everyone can use it. Something like:
Information icon Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that your changes to [article] have been reverted or corrected, as they were not grammatically correct English. If you speak a different language more fluently, you can take a look at the List of Wikipedias to find and help a Wikipedia project in that language. If you want to improve the English Wikipedia, you could consider tasks which don't require absolute fluency of the language, such as adding images, creating requested articles, responding to edit requests, fixing unreferenced statements, fixing original research, fixing vandalism, integrating articles into the encyclopedia, welcoming newcomers, link recovery and categorization. If you want to add content to an article but aren't able to write it fluently, you can post a message on the article's talk page to see if other editors can help you with it.
The list of tasks could maybe be broken out into a bullet list. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Lord Belbury, The list of tasks sound like the template is trying to recruit contributors to do mundane tasks. Instead of listing individial links to various task, I think it is better to replace them with a master link of "You can help here". I dont remember the exact target of the link but it was a page that listed a bunch of places where a new user can help to contribute. Other than that this is a good template. Do we need to get the wordings vetted by a committee before the red link of the template turns blue?--Walrus Ji (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a modified version of the list at Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Maintenance_tasks,_news,_and_discussions. I didn't link to it partly because it includes the copyediting that the template would be telling them not to do, but also because it's not an enormously friendly section, and describing them as "maintenance tasks" doesn't sound very welcoming. I don't know what vetting is required for template creation. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Lord Belbury, thanks for the links. Wikipedia:Task Center is a beginner friendly landing page. I believe linking it is better and less offensive. My suggested phrase will be "If you want to improve the English Wikipedia, you could consider doing other tasks listed at Wikipedia:Task Center." I dont think a committee is needed. The consensus on this page among ourselves should be enough. folks can always improve it later on. I suggest waiting for Joefromrandb: and IamNotU to respond and then going boldly ahead and turn the red link blue. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a much better link to the Task Center, I wasn't aware of that page. Thanks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:Task Center is listed on the first line, when I click the link you posted above. Glad to see you agree to it.Walrus Ji (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement over the one linked above. I guess I'm still not certain that such a template should be created though. Most templates are warnings that escalate into something that's blockable. But nobody ever gets blocked for bad grammar, if they're also making useful contributions. The only time I've seen it is when someone decides that it's their only job to do inept copy editing, or when their English is truly incomprehensible, to the extent that they probably couldn't read that template. Then it escalates to WP:CIR. But that's a tricky thing, I wouldn't use templates for that. The main thing is that I wouldn't normally suggest to someone right away that they restrict themselves to images or anti-vandalism etc. We don't have a policy like that. In many cases, people with poor English skills have a lot to offer, and help give a more balanced, global perspective that Wikipedia needs. Others can help clean up the wording. I'm afraid it would be too easy for people to notice some poor English, and slap a potentially good contributor with a template suggesting they stop contributing because of competence issues.

I know editors who are really good assets to Wikipedia, who at first I was skeptical about because I had a hard time understanding what they were saying (and still do). It's easy to think that because someone's English is poor, that they're uneducated or generally not competent (if you've ever lived in a foreign country, you'll know the feeling of people treating you like you're a moron). Sometimes that's the case but you can't make assumptions about it. I think you have to give someone the benefit of the doubt for a while, until you see what they're capable of. But sometimes it is obvious. The notice above might be suitable for a particular range of people, but there's a wide spectrum and I think there's too much potential for something like this to be misapplied. On the other hand, I'm not aware of a good essay or help page specifically for people who are not native English speakers. Or maybe better, something that all editors would benefit from reading, that would discuss all these issues. If we don't have that, we should. In that case, I could see a template something like "I noticed some problems with the grammar or wording in your edit. It had to be reverted or corrected. You might like to read Wikipedia:Friendly and helpful guide about speaking English". Do we have something like that already? --IamNotU (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User warning templates are (to quote WP:UW) "to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faith vandals or editors engaging in disruptive editing", they aren't all expecting escalation. If we have a template for failing to italicise book titles, I think we can have one for good-faith but low-quality copyediting. I'm 100% behind the idea that these users have a lot to offer, and shouldn't (where the warning editor doesn't have time to hand-craft a reassuring paragraph of advice and links) just be given a generic uw-vandalism "one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive", or no feedback at all. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure. I'm not strictly against a template per se. I just mainly don't think it's a good idea to jump directly to suggesting that they restrict themselves to maintenance-like tasks. It's more complex. There are some good comments about English at WP:CIR, but usually referring people there isn't the best idea. One has to be somewhat sensitive when suggesting questions of competence. I found this: Wikipedia:Speakers of other languages, which has some bits of wisdom. It hasn't been developed very far though. --IamNotU (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
IamNotU, you can consider this as a Wikipedia:Template_index/User_talk_namespace#Single-level_templates. If the user continues to make edits that are reverted it can be considered a WP:CIR case. Lord Belbury depending upon the feedback, you can also start your proposed one at {{uw-copyedit}}. My initial thought was pessimistic, but I think there is benefit in creating this template. Editors who are still unconvinced can ignore this and not use it. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2

{{uw-grammar}}

Please see the wordings at the template I have created at the location above, and suggest improvements. I feel it is good to go. and I will be using it regardless. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, you can do what you like in terms of leaving your own personal messages on peoples' talk pages. But you can't create a standard warning template here without consensus. I'm going to remove it from the list pages. If you'd like, you could put a {{Db-author}} template to delete it until consenus is established. Otherwise I guess I'll list it at WP:TFD. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
IamNotU, please leave it for sometime for building a consensus here. Depending on how it goes, It can remain here, if the proposal fails, I will userfy it. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I removed it from the template index. You need consensus to add things there, it says so right at the top of the page. Now it's a kind of orphan, I'm not actually sure what should happen with it. I will probably list it at WP:TFD and see. I think there's no chance that it will get consensus the way it's written now. I don't even think it should be used, since you need to understand that poor grammar and badly worded sentences are not acceptable doesn't correpond to general consensus, e.g. There is no expectation that editors have high English skills. Minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others. from WP:CIR. I also rather doubt that there will be enough support for a "uw-grammar" template in general. I guess it depends on the wording, but I think it would be too succeptible to misuse. There's a little bit of older discusion here: Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 9#are there warnings/notices for these? Should there be?, Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 17#New template for misuse of grammar tools?. --IamNotU (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
IamNotU Based on the points raised by you, I have rephrased the wording. Draft copied below.--Walrus Ji (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Information icon Hello USER_NAME, I'm EDITOR_NAME, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article OPTIONAL_ARTICLE_NAME. Some of your edits have been removed and archived in the page history as the edits were improperly phrased with poor grammar. I understand that English may not be your first language and I do not fault you for making such mistakes or not having a large vocabulary, it is completely normal and no one should be expected to know the language to perfection. However, if this is your situation please feel free to ask for help on the talk page by including the citation along with your proposed edits, there are multiple users who would be glad to help you fix the grammar related issues by copy editing. You could also consider doing other tasks listed at Wikipedia:Task Center.
Joining User:IamNotU, I'm concerned with this idea. Deliberately, there are very few user warnings for good-faith edits that don't violate a behavioral policy or guideline. This warning gives no instruction to the recipient about how to mitigate the problem going forward, because there is no generalized, practicable mitigation (tell the user to learn English grammar?). Instead, the message either makes sensitive negative judgments about the user's capabilities (or intelligence), or tells the user to basically consider not contributing to Wikipedia. Not good. Far better to simply correct the errors, letting the revision speak for itself, or to write a specific message to the user if doing so would be helpful. --Bsherr (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Bsherr, to mitigate the problem the template, suggests the user to seek help from the article talk page. And also suggests the user to consider other tasks at WP:TC. The potential target of this template is a user who has a high chance to end up at ANI due to language related WP:CIR issues. I have added some wikilinks to help define some terms. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

About user warnings and blocks

This is a bit of a long rant, but I do want to start discussion about how we are approaching trolling and vandalism.

Isn't the goal to assume good faith throughout while addressing problems that bad-faith editors are causing? Obviously, some people are here in bad faith and giving warnings is just egging the trolls. I think all the level 1 and level 2 warning templates should stay, and if a user is causing obvious problems, then we give a temporary block. Most trolls when they are given a temporary block will go away. This is partly from my experience with wikiHow; if we just give escalating blocks after assuming good faith (up to and including indefinite), then we would have less of a problem with trolling. We could start with a 3-day block, then a 7-day block, then a 2-week block, and then a 3-month block (after giving the appropriate coaching templates). It will stop most, but not all, trolls, and those who sock can just be informed to stick to one account only and to not cause any trouble. Unfortunately, I see too many indefinite blocks. Spambots can obviously be blocked indefinitely as well as any sockpuppets, but there is little point in blocking a new user who just appears to be vandalizing a bit indefinitely. Some editors start as vandals and then continue on to become productive editors. We should help new editors learn the ropes of Wikipedia, not exclude them out.

Also, about blocks, we are completely missing the point of blocks by blocking trolls indefinitely. As stated at Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

Blocks should be used to:

  1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
  2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and
  3. encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.

So if a user's only ten edits appear to only be vandalism, that is not a "vandalism-only account". But if a user has caused a lot of vandalism and spam in the long term, then I would say that yes it is only a vandalism account. We also should not call an editor a "troll" or a "vandal", and that is what "vandalism-only account" is doing. If we are blocking a vandal, we can simply say "long-term unproductive edits" or something similar.

Anyway, that is my complaint about how we are doing warnings right now. I do want to hear the view of admins as well on this issue so we can find an effective strategy for coaching editors. Aasim (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

Please change the first sentence from "I noticed that you recently removed all content from a page. Please do not do this." to "I am not sure if this is your intention, but it appears that you removed all content from a page (or a section of a page)." This is a friendlier warning because the message in its current form appears to accuse the editor of doing something wrong. Aasim (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I don't think this should be changed. The editor did do something wrong. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree. I can't see how someone could blank a page by accident. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
As the old saying goes, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." In addition, "page" is vague here, as there are many types of pages on Wikipedia, not just articles, that might have legitimate reasons for being blanked. We should probably tighten the wording somewhat. But I do agree a consensus is needed before any changes are made. BilCat (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
You know what, maybe it would be good to redirect this to the "Vandalism" series as if you look at Recent changes - Wikipedia much of it was reverted and one instance was identified as vandalism. The other thing is that blanking occurs very rarely in article space. Aasim (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

Currently, the user level warning series on Template:Uw-agf1 does not show that escalation to Level 4 is possible, which uses Template:Uw-npa4. I propose that it be documented by adding |escalate=yes|escalate_to=npa to the documentation template. Thanks in advance Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

On {{Uw-uhblock-double}}, the "{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}" should be replaced with "{{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}}" because other username block templates like "{{Uw-ublock-double}}" have this unblock request templates for users who have been blocked for having an inappropriate username. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I don't see an easy way to integrate that to the template. I've created Template:Uw-uhblock-double/sandbox, please consider making your desired changes there first. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

Replace the word "removed" with "reverted", as removed implies revision deletion, which is incorrect, and the correct term would be "reverted". Steve M (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor Steve M:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

There is a space missing before the last sentence of the second paragraph, "edit.Please"... Adolphus79 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Conversion of {{uw-badlistentry}} into template series

With all the recent TikTok non-notable vandalism waves, I think that just a reminder is not enough. We could convert the template into a template series, or just create a level 2 warning like what happened with {{uw-editsummary2}}. What I'm thinking is a stronger wording that would let them know that adding non-notable entries to lists can and will result in blocks if continued. There aren't many cases of the same IP/editor re-adding themselves to the page, but stronger wording might prevent other people from doing it.

Also, aside from a new UW template, perhaps an editnotice can do the job, just like how BLP articles have the editnotices? These are just my thoughts, if you have any other ideas, feel free to let me know ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 09:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

COI tag removal

Is there an existing user warning template for users removing COI or UPE tags on articles without fixing the problem? Aspening (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Aspening, There's the generic Template:Uw-tdel series, but I don't think there's anything specifically for COI/UPE. Adam9007 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Adam9007: Those should work fine. Aspening (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

Add {{{sig|~~<noinclude/>~~}}} after the {{{2}}} parameter. JsfasdF252 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@JsfasdF252: Wouldn't this contradict the guidelines here? Tools such as Twinkle assume that the standard warning templates do not include a signature. -- John of Reading (talk) [not a template editor or admin] 15:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Why shouldn't the template include the signature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JsfasdF252 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@JsfasdF252: For {{Uw-disruptive2}} to behave differently to all other warning templates would make things harder for everyone, as anyone placing a warning would have to be aware of which templates added a signature and which didn't. Changing all the templates to add a signature by default would need much wider discussion, as the design guideline has been in place for over a decade. All the regular editors using these templates know how they behave, or use tools that have been coded to work with the current design of the templates. Editors know they can write their own message following the templated message: {{subst:uw-xyz}} More messages and templates here. ~~~~
 Not done: per above — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-medrs

New template {{Uw-medrs}} is released and available for use. I've added it to Category:Standardised user warning templates for now; please remove the category if you find it inappropriate. It has consensus from WP:MED, although it's not yet clear whether this will evolve into a set of multi-level templates or not. For now, it has no numeric suffix, with the assumption that it is single-level, so I've added it to {{Single notice links}}. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Idea for new single-issue notice: {{uw-notsocialnetwork}}

Already exists at {{uw-socialnetwork}} Aasim (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

This warning would be a single issue warning with this message:

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions; however, it seems as if you are engaging in too much off-topic discussion or edits to your user page. It is great that you would like to make friends here, but I would like you to consider chatting or personalizing your user page somewhere else as unfortunately, Wikipedia is not intended as a social networking space.

Why does this matter?
Every time you make an edit it has to be reviewed by volunteers on the site. When there are too many off topic edits being made, it could potentially stop these patrollers from spotting vandalism or other bad edits. For this reason, we have to revoke the editing privileges of users who persistently post comments not pertaining to Wikipedia or make too many edits to their user pages.
What are some alternatives to chatting on Wikipedia?
If you wish to continue chatting with other Wikipedians, there are a few places where you can talk more generally:
What are some alternatives to customizing user pages on Wikipedia?
If your primary focus is not editing articles but designing your own user page or blog, there are a few sites where you can do this without restrictions:

We hope that you understand why we do not allow general discussion on Wikipedia. Please feel free to leave any questions on my talk page. Thank you.

We already have the {{uw-chat}} series but it is too specific to just misusing talk pages. This template would cover everything a social network user might do on the site under a blanket umbrella. Aasim (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a few comments about this warning, so I'll break it down into bullet points.
  • This is unbelievably too big of a warning for such a mundane reason. This isn't a copyright violation or a conflict of interest notice.
  • Why is there a mention of a block on a single-issue warning for a warning on WP:NOTSOCIAL? This feels like a threat to a user, who I expect might not have known about that policy in the first place. This doesn't assume the good faith in new users, and I'd even call this a bit more stern than {{uw-disruptive1}}.
  • "it could potentially stop these patrollers from spotting vandalism or other bad edits.": This assumes that the editing is being done on mainspace pages (since those are the pages which have constant patrollers), which would require {{uw-talkinarticle}}, not this. I'm fairly sure that almost all counter-vandalism editors rarely see a userspace edit run through their filters.
  • Making too many edits to [your own] user pages is a blockable offense? As far as I'm aware, the only thing disallowed is only editing in user space, not making too many edits on it. This needs to be worded differently or removed.
  • If someone wanted to talk, they would seek out the appropriate place for it. Handholding them to other places isn't needed. Just link to WP:IRC or WP:DISCORD and let them figure out the rest.
  • The entire section for "alternatives to customizing user pages" isn't needed. It comes of as promotional and spammy, as a counter-vandalism editor myself. Just tell a short excerpt of WP:UPG or just link to it rather than list whatever social network exists.
  • {{uw-socialnetwork}} already exists, and {{uw-chat}} can be easily modified to change content depending on the namespace of the related page. Is the benefit of implementing this template much higher than just modifying the old ones?
Chlod (say hi!) 02:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Well... there's my answer. We already have a template, so closing. Aasim (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2021 (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.

Template:Uw-agf-assign

{{Uw-agf-assign}} has been created by User:RoySmith, but I see no discussion or approval here for the notice. Is this something that's needed, or is it covered by another notice? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

BilCat, There was a (short) discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#uw-agf-assign. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Tucked away on spi/clerks tp isn't really a place for much community input, but I just say that a general observation. This specific template doesn't seem at all controversial, and may actually be helpful. (jmho) - wolf 04:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thewolfchild, I did not realize there was an official approval process. It was not my intent to side-step that. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't know there was one either. And this isn't a criticism, like I said, I think it could be a useful template. I was just picking up on BilCat's comment, and noting there wasn't much discussion or an opportunity for one. But I think that would really only be more of a big deal with a different template. - wolf 04:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to clean up grammar in first sentence of Template:Uw-ew

The first sentence of Template:Uw-ew currently says: "You currently appear to be engaged in an [[WP:Edit warring|edit war]]{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}| according to the reverts you have made on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree." The independent clause following the semicolon is awkward in several respects and can be improved by (a) changing the semicolon to a period and (b) changing the second independent clause to "This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree." This also avoids assuming that the editor has seen that other editors disagree e.g., they may believe that their previous edit(s) was not made because of a technical error. ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor ElKevbo:  done, and thank your for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Please add a link to {{db-spam}} in the {{redirect}} disambiguation template, add the word "the" between "for" and "email shortener", and change "{{tl|spam}}" to "[[Template:Spam]]", on {{uw-spam1}}. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: look at User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable - I think you've made a mess of these requests; since you have asked for the edit to be to this template on each one, please unduplicate any thing that isn't needed, then make sure your requests are pointing at the right pages. — xaosflux Talk 17:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Xaosflux, I've only made an edit request for this template. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Apologies @JJPMaster: looks like it was Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao who for some reason has tanscluded this talk to many other pages instead of the normal convention of redirecting them to here; I'll see if we can get that cleaned up. — xaosflux Talk 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 17:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Block notices

{{Uw-ublock}} and {{Uw-ublock-wellknown}} are softblocks and ought to have blue backgrounds like the other username softblock notices, {{Uw-adminublock}}, {{Uw-ublock-double}}, {{Uw-botublock}}, {{Uw-causeblock}}, & {{Uw-softerblock}}. Am I wrong? Cabayi (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi, sounds good to me. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Banned-indef - making the template more usable?

My purpose of this discussion is to make the Template:Banned-indef template more usable when notifying a user that a site ban against them has been enacted.

Therefore, I was wondering if the template's syntax and text can be modified to succinctly describe the action taken, such as including a syntax for the permalink to the AN/ANI discussion that got the user community banned, as well as including options that the user can take to appeal their ban in the future, according to WP:UNBAN and the standard offer.

What I am hoping to achieve with the template is something like this, based on how administrators have worded site ban notifications in the past:

You have been banned from editing the English Wikipedia per community consensus established at (link to discussion). You may appeal the ban according to the provisions at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans.

Does any administrator who has experience in enacting site bans have any ideas that can make this template even better? Hx7 00:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

For the template {{uw-blocked}}, if banned users are using an IP to evade their ban, we could (if we don't already have this) have a |banned= parameter that modifies it to read something like "You have been blocked for [x] [time] for editing anonymously to evade your ban". Could a template editor or similar implement this? Thanks, SpacetimeIsCool (talk ∙ contribs) 22:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@SpacetimeIsCool: So basically {{uw-ipevadeblock}}, but with a link to ban evasion instead of block evasion; have I got that right? Might be easier to create a new template {{uw-ipevadeban}}. --Bsherr (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

This sentence sounds better to me than “Your account has been blocked indefinitely”:

“Sorry, but your account has been blocked indefinitely” Kaseng55 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I disagree. The template states a fact without emotion. What if the editor applying it is not sorry? You can always edit the page after applying the template if you want to put your own spin on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


– The current name stands out of {{Uw-notenglish}} and {{Uw-notenglishedit}}. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:29, 19 April 2021 (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.

Notice: request to add Template:Uw-medrs to Huggle

If you're interested in the reliable sourcing of medical-related topics or content, or in the use of WP:Huggle, you may wish to add your thoughts to Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback#Proposal to add template Uw-medrs. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-minor should be multi-level

In my experience, one of the most frequent and overlooked problems on Wikipedia is chronic misuse of minor edits. Even admins are often unaware of the fact that intentionally marking major edits as minor constitutes vandalism, which is clearly and explicitly mentioned in WP:VANDAL, and that this alone is a reason for blocking the user from editing, if the user ignores requests to stop.

Marking major edits as minor is the No. 1, standard tactic used by the majority of spammers on Wikipedia. Every "professional" wikispammer now knows that when they add spam links, they "have to" mark their edits as minor. This is common knowledge nowadays. But even though you can block spammers for spamming, not for hiding major edits as minor, this is not limited to spammers—countless persistently disruptive users are stubbornly marking all edits as minor, and keep doing it even after multiple warnings. In my opinion, marking edits as minor should be a privilege granted only to experienced, confirmed editors, but what's relevant here, the uw-minor template should definitely be multi-level. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has been dealing with disruptive editors on Wikipedia for 15+ years. These people refuse to listen to all explanations. Expanding this template would help people who constantly have to invent their own "uw-minor-2", "uw-minor-3" warnings etc., it would give them a firmer position at places like WP:ANI, and it should also serve as a reminder to those admins who are not completely familiar with the rules that the rules do exist and should be taken seriously.

Therefore, I suggest additional levels for this template, like:

Information icon Please do not mark major edits as minor. Minor edits in articles only consist of corrections, formatting or layout tweaks, adding internal wikilinks (as opposed to external links) or reverting vandalism. Anything else is a major edit. Any edit that adds or removes content to or from an article, even a single word, is a major edit. Marking major edits as minor is considered poor etiquette on Wikipedia, so please stop doing it. Thank you.

Warning icon Please stop marking major edits as minor. When in doubt, do not mark your edit as minor—marking minor edits as minor is not required, but marking major edits as minor is always wrong. Intentionally marking edits as minor to get less scrutiny constitutes vandalism and may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia by marking a major edit as minor.

J. M. (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi J. M. User warnings must be grounded in the policies and guidelines. Right now, the minor edit feature is documented in an information page. No policy or guideline specifically punishes its general misuse, so its misuse would only give cause for blocking under the blocking policy if it rises to disruptive editing, or in the narrow situation of a bad-faith edit intentionally marked minor to evade scrutiny, which is considered vandalism. We already have disruptive editing and vandalism warning series. So a warning series on minor edits would have to differentiate between the disruptive editing and vandalism situations, and would have to be grounded in those policies with appropriate links to each. --Bsherr (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

Please change 'has' to 'have' in the first line, because one or more of your edits ... has have been reverted makes more (grammatical) sense. This should also be done to any similar templates if appropriate. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 15:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

Change "one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive" to "one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive" - the current text doesn't really read well to me. Remagoxer (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 June 2021 (2)

Could 'my talk page' be linked (using something like this: [[User talk:<includeonly>{{safesub<noinclude/>st:REVISIONUSER}}</includeonly<noinclude>Jimbo Wales</noinclude>|my talk page]])? ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 18:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I don't see this as necessary. The signature will usually (and likely always for patrollers) include such a page. Izno (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@Izno: Linking to talk pages appears on several of the common warning templates. (E.g. Template:uw-delete1.)― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 08:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done Izno (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

Replace "the username policy" with "our username policy" to make it more in-line with our templates. aeschylus (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see which templates use said wording - and the wording on these should be the strictest, I think "the username policy" makes sense here. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Interpolated comments, TPO, and THREAD

I've run into the problem of users (often newbies, but not always) inserting their Talk page reply into the middle of a previous comment, often intentionally. (The problem is a lot worse, when they fail to sign their comment as well, and the interpolated comment appears to belong to someone else.) I scanned the project page for anything about WP:TPO, WP:THREAD, WP:REDACT, or the words 'middle' or 'interpolate', but didn't turn up a template that warns/explains about this. The closest I got was to {{uw-toppost}}, but that's really not the same thing.

I think we need a template for this. Can we have a discussion about whether there's agreement to have one, and if so, what should it be called, and how we should word the text? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I created one at Template:Uw-middlepost, it gets the jist of what you're saying but I don't think the wording is quite right. - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been working on it a bit and I think it seems well suited to what you're describing now, though maybe it could use a little more explanation on why putting comments in the middle of other comments is problematic. - Aoidh (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Aoidh:, thanks, I'll comment there about wording. Since I first posted, I discovered {{Uw-tpv1}}, which is closer than {{uw-toppost}}, but not really what I was looking for. Wanted to mention it here, so we could see whether it and the new one should be two templates, or whether uw-tpv1 should be expanded (possibly conditionally, under a param? e.g, |middle=yes, or |interpolate=yes or something) or not. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
So, I see you redirected the Talk page there back here; so I made some edits directly to the template wording, see what you think. I also added redirects from Template:Uw-interpolate and Template:Uw-interleave, and added some standard doc from {{Templates notice}}. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Aoidh, do you happen to know if there's any formal process to get a user warning template added to the list, and to notify Twinkle about it? Do we just leave this discussion open for a while, and wait for commentary, or what happens next? Mathglot (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:uw-remove

I think the 'If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored' part should be changed or removed, as it looks bad if it was a mistake and the removed content hasn't been restored. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 11:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Izno. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 11:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to open an edit request. Izno (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Template(s) for inappropriate usage of multi-level warnings in UT namespace

Hello,

I've noticed a tendency of (generally new) editors to not use the appropriate level from multi-level templates when warning users regarding vandalism and similar actions.

Example, under-warning a user who repeatedly vandalizes the same page:

{{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article}} Example (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-vandalism2|Article}} Example2 (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-vandalism3|Article}} Example (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article}} A New User (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Example, over-warning a user who made a bad edit in good faith:

{{subst:uw-vandalism4|Article}} A New User (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This form of improper warning can lead to an inadequate or excessive amount of warnings prior to the user being reported to AIV, as most users tend to use the next level after the most recent warning, or "reset" to level one if the user is over-warned. The usage of a template to inform users who warn inappropriately could reduce instances of this happening and consequently make anti-vandalism efforts more efficient and effective in the long run.

Two templates related to improper UT namespace warnings already exist, namely uw-warn and uw-tempabuse1. However, neither of them fill this niche, and it would be difficult to generalize either template to cover these issues. Therefore I suggest a template be created for this issue. Any opinions? Thanks, Bass77talkcontribs 01:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the most polite and appropriate way to deal with this issue is to engage directly with the user in question on a case by case basis, rather than using a template, which can feel a little insulting. JBchrch talk 12:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, JBchrch. I understand your reasoning, and definitely agree that a poorly-worded template could be disparaging, particularly to new editors. However, I think a template could be perceived as helpful instead of rude if written appropriately. After all, most Wikipedians would understand that the existence of the template implies that many new Wikipedians make the same error, and they aren't being "singled out" for their actions.
The template being present in the UT templates index would also help editors who rely on templates to provide such messages in these situations, because the template's usage would be encouraged simply due to it being in the index. Otherwise, editors would need to find and read WP:UWLEVELS to understand that such a warning is in fact appropriate, and then write the message on their own. I'm interested in hearing what thoughts you and others have on the matter. Thanks, Bass77talkcontribs 17:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

I think the 'If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored' part should be changed to 'If this was a mistake, please notify me on my [Link to talk page], if the removed content has not been restored, with a reason why it should be restored.' or something along those lines. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 21:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. If someone made a spurious removal then you should revert it before you warn them about it. Nardog (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Nardog To clarify, this text is for when you have reverted their edit, and they think it's a mistake. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 16:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
No, "this" refers to the removal, not the revert. The template already covers the case where they think it shouldn't have been reverted, in the penultimate sentence ("If you think I made a mistake..."). Nardog (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Uw-hatespeech

Template:Uw-hatespeech has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-derogatory. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-islamhon1

Template:Uw-islamhon1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of RFD and MFD notices

We have the series {{Uw-afd1}}-through-4 that explicitly address removal of AFD notices. I would suggest either rewriting them to cover any XFD notice, or create a new template series to address removal of other notices... and integrate them into Twinkle. Alsee (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2021

– A recent TfD voted to convert this to a single-issue warning; levels 2 and 3 now redirect to the {{uw-mos1}} series. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutral: In the TfD, I thought that having uw-islamhon1 with the MOS series would be best, but the wording for uw-mos2 doesn't really fit, even with Huggle or Redwarn. So I wouldn't object to this being single-issue and having {{uw-mos2}}/3 or {{uw-disruptive2}}/3 on a case-by-case basis. @LaundryPizza03 –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 01:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed notice: uw-editarchive

I've lately seen quite a bit of edits that edit archives, some of the archives dating back to 2013. After looking at the archiving guidelines and refactoring page, I've produced uw-editarchive, which can be found atUser:WhoAteMyButter/Uw-editarchive. Need feedback on if this template wording is appropriate, deserves a template at all, and any other criticisms. Thanks, WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 05:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that people are free to blank their own talk pages (and even archives) since the edit history is public. That said, users editing someone else's archive definitely deserves a warning template. I could edit it to be a bit less harsh if you'll allow me to edit that template on your userspace. @WhoAteMyButter –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 01:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gladamas: I'd be perfectly fine with that! Is verbal permission fine or do I need to manually allow you to edit it? Thanks, WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 02:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Appealing Warnings

Is there a place where one may appeal warnings that he believes were unfairly given? I have seen a lot of discussion about appealing blocks, but I haven't had success in finding anything about appealing warnings. Is that something that the Admin Notice Board is for? I believe that it should be possible to appeal unfair warnings so that editors who have done nothing wrong are given a clean slate. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Uchiha Itachi 25: warnings aren't something you need to appeal, you can just remove them from your talkpage if you like. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
As an example, if I were to receive an edit warning, I could discuss the matter with the issuer or a third party. No action has taken place, so there's nothing to appeal—it's just a discussion. Think of it in terms of a traffic citation versus a written warning: warnings are merely for informational purposes. Action (which can be appealed), only takes place if the warning is insufficient. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

The template {{Uw-softerblock}} gives a misnested tag Lint error when it is substed because of unbalanced <p>...</p> tags. When the template is substed, it uses 4 <p> and 5 </p>. This is the template code responsible - 

|<p>You should also read our [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest guideline]] and be aware that '''promotional editing is not acceptable''' regardless of the username you choose.}} Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid, you '''must''' [[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|disclose who is paying you]] to edit.</p> Please also note that you '''are''' permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".</p>

To fix this, an opening p tag must be added after the first p tag is closed. So please change

[[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|disclose who is paying you]] to edit.</p> Please also note that you

to

[[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|disclose who is paying you]] to edit.</p> <p>Please also note that you

I have tested this by making the changing in template sandbox and substing it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

To editor ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (2)

Sister template (not a duplicate request).
Please add Z number documentation assignment {{Z206}} between "Thank you" and hidden text as highlighted:
{{{2|Thank you.}}}{{Z206}}<!-- Template:uw-subtle2 -->
— CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

To editor CJDOS: before implementing this edit and the one just above, we might want to wait until this range of Z templates has been finally dispositioned? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

Please add Z number documentation assignment {{Z205}} between "Thank you" and hidden text as highlighted:
{{{2|Thank you.}}}{{Z205}}<!-- Template:uw-subtle1 -->
— CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Before implementing this edit and the one just below, we might want to wait until this range of Z templates has been finally dispositioned? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Paine Ellsworth, and thank you. I thought my edit request might remain pending until the resolution of the TfD, unless a response was required sooner. The TfD was created the day after I started implementing Z-number templates in four User Warning templates. I was then notified of the discussion, and tagged the master template to link them all to the TfD. As long as this and its next request weren't forgotten (as open requests) when the discussion closes, but if the discussion had closed with a delete result, I would have withdrawn the requests. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
To editor CJDOS: yes, I see things the same way, and it doesn't look good for those Z templates that I have used in the past. If you want these two edit requests reopened, then go ahead. But it does appear that all those Z's will be gone soon. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 04 August 2021

The template {{Uw-causeblock}} gives unbalanced <p>...</p> tags when it is substed. It gives 4 <p> and 5 </p>. This is because the template uses {{pb}} for the first parabreak, which renders as <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>, while </p> followed by <p> is used for the next paragraph. So to fix this unbalanced tags, {{pb}} should be replaced with <p>. I have showed the fix in Template:Uw-causeblock/Sandbox and verified it works substing it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 13:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Time parameter doesn't work on uw-soablock

When using Template:Uw-soablock, no matter if I set time=X hours, indef=no, anon=yes, or combinations thereof, the template always says "blocked indefinitely". This is undesirable for using on an IP address that has been doing promotional edits (but not link spamming). We don't block IP addresses indefinitely.

I can edit the template, but I don't know enough to fix the problem. Hence the edit request. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: I changed the request level to a semi protected request. Terasail[✉️] 22:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 Note: I'm closing this request, as the template isn't really used for technical help. Perhaps village pump technical would be able to help? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Uw-unreliable Long sentence

The sentence for the Uw-unreliable template seems very long and difficult to read due to the length. Pokeswap (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Empty edit request

Re: {{Empty edit request}}, its talk page redirects here, but it's not listed on Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. Is it supposed to be? I recently discovered the notice, and it is use and needed. BilCat (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-minor rewrite

Back in April 2020, I boldly rewrote the language at {{uw-minor}}. The edits have stood since then, with minor tweaks by others, but Spinningspark recently rolled back to the old version. I'm opening this discussion so we can reach agreement on the wording. Comparing the versions, here's the old pre-April 2020:

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

And here's post-April 2020 version:

Information icon Hi Example! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.

I think the second version is a lot friendlier, especially to newcomers. It starts out by greeting them and explains why the poster is posting on their page, something the first version does not. The first version feels very formal and accusatory (e.g. "in accordance with Help:Minor edit"), whereas the second version tacitly acknowledges that our definition of "minor" is not going to be intuitive for most newcomers, who can't be expected to automatically understand that an edit of thousands of characters can be minor if it's rvv but a single word change can be very major if it's controversial. The examples in the second version are also presented more concisely, which makes the message a bit shorter (and therefore more likely to be actually read).

What do others here think? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the second version is better. I also like that it removed the "test edit" as an example, because that might confuse who are adding content to test the results, but don't necessarily intend to remove the text after. - Aoidh (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the set of templates used by Twinkle. People expect these templates to be more or less stable and can't be expected to check them each and every time they use them. I certailnly don't. It would at least have been polite to inform Twinkle users that major text changes was going to/had happened. I know the request says "breaking changes" but this should really have been respected nonetheless. You still haven't posted at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle now.
  • My specific objections are firstly that the clause at the end of the second sentence "...that may not have been" is grammatically ambiguous. It's an infinitive in need of an object. The user could be left asking "my edit might not have been what?". I went to the template to fix that, but once I realised this was an undiscussed change, I reverted it.
  • I don't like the chatty opening "Hi Spinningspark!" Now this is a matter of taste, but I'll just point out that most warning templates open with "Welcome to Wikipedia..." or "Thankyou for your contributions..." If we want to be more informal then it should be across all the templates and again, a discussion first would be appropriate.
  • Perhaps the most serious objection of all is that concentrating on changes of meaning not being minor could be misleading. It is easily possible to edit an article without changing meaning and still be disputed. Changing from active voice to passive voice, for instance, won't change meaning but could be highly controversial. Try doing that in a Featured Article and see how long it takes before you're reverted.
SpinningSpark 13:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your concerns.
For the first one, how about rephrasing to I noticed that you recently marked a non-minor edit as a minor one.?
For the second one, there's already plenty of variation among warning templates, so I don't see major consistency concerns. I would like to see some other templates changed to similar language, but that's a discussion for another time. Greeting a user by name when posting on their talk page is what a friendly human editor would do, and we should aspire to have our templates use human language.
For the last one, the definition portion is refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, which is borrowed directly from Help:Minor. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit is added on after, but it never implies that all other edits are minor. This is again language borrowed directly from the nutshell at Help:Minor. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with #1. I don't agree with #3 but I'll live with it as the guideline itself seems to have the same problem. For #2 you say you would like to change other templates. I don't think there is as much variation as you think there is, especially in the multilevel templates. If you want to change all of them, then the appropriate thing to do is start a broader discussion first rather than picking away at them one at a time until you run into opposition. If you only want to change the uw-minor template then you need to say why that template in particular needs changing. SpinningSpark 07:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing a notification to Twinkle users on this so I'll do that myself. SpinningSpark 07:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

Requesting to reword Template:Uw-unsourced4 from "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia." → "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia." From level 1 to 3 (Uw-unsourced1, Uw-unsourced2, Uw-unsourced3), the sentence can be interpret that user has added unsourced materials to article, at the same time, it can also be interpret that user has not provided a reliable source. While level 4, the sentence can only be interpret that user has added unsourced materials to article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll:  Done. Having these be consistent will be good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb Thanks a lot. Happy editing! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed new warning: uw-editarchive

I previously talked about this before, but it seems that it didn't gain much air. So, here's a second try. I've lately seen quite a bit of edits that edit archives, some of the archives dating back to 2007 (!). After looking at the archiving guidelines and refactoring page, I've produced uw-editarchive, which can be found atUser:WhoAteMyButter/Uw-editarchive. Need feedback on if this template wording is appropriate, deserves a template at all, and any other criticisms. Also, if it should be a single-level or a multi-level template? Thanks, WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 22:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

After casual discussion offwiki with other copyright editors and my own frustration, I am here with a proposal to create leveled warnings for the copyright templates. These include:

  • {{uw-copyright-new}} - editors who have not been warned about copyright before and are under AC (or EC for some), currently a single warning
  • {{uw-copyright}} - standard template used, currently a single warning
  • {{uw-copying}} - currently a notice, used to remind people to attribute for copying within Wikipedia
  • {{uw-cpmove}} - currently a notice, used to remind people to not make cut paste moves or to attribute them
  • {{uw-copyright-link}} - used for WP:LINKVIO, currently a single warning.

I propose that these all be converted to multi-level warnings (barring copyright-new, which would serve as a level 1 warning). Copyvio on Wikipedia is not a counter that resets like other warning templates. When someone shows that they have made repeated copyvio currently (we go by 5), they can expect a block and some form of review of their contributions. I believe that the current warnings do not adequately describe how copyright works on Wikipedia, but that also comes with Wikipedia copyright information being highly decentralized in the first place. However, having some of these (especially cpmove and copying) be reminders means that people ignore them more than they do the others. Thoughts? Sennecaster (Chat) 12:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd support the conversion of those templates to leveled warnings but not really for {{uw-c&pmove}}. Cut-and-paste moves are usually made due to editor dissent to an existing discussion (because in that case, a G6 cannot be performed due to a lack of consensus), so the succeeding levels should really be part of the {{uw-disruptive}} series. Chlod (say hi!) 03:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Chlod: Cut paste moves I'm iffy on merging to the disruptive series compared to the rest. I feel that as of today, there are no widespread cutpaste moves that need to be corrected, but a chronic cut-paste move problem can indicate problems with WP licensing. I think that one would be best to stay as a single-level notice out of them all. Apologies for the slow response. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

On Template:Uw-npa1, please...
Add |hatnote = {{redirect|Template:NPA|a removed personal attack|Template:RPA}}
Within {{Templatesnotice}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? I'm not seeing the potential for confusion, as "removed" does not start with N. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I think so, but maybe I am more confused than the average user. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
FWIW I agree that this is unlikely to be necessary. I can't see that many people confusing NPA with RPA... firefly ( t · c ) 16:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

uw-mos[n]: do we really expect anyone to read the entire MOS to work out why they are being denounced?

Is there a way to improve this template set so that they requires the notifier to specify which specific contravention of the MOS is the reason for its use? It is entirely unhelpful to new or recent editors to be told that their edit contravenes the MOS, but be given no clue about which of its many rules they have contravened. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I'd even support getting rid of them to encourage specific messages like you're saying. Do people use these? Enterprisey (talk!) 22:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
'Fraid so. See User talk:Faarlvatar Veldtamid#November 2021, which is what made me raise this. Ironically, the bad practice complained of is not even in the MOS! Getting rid is probably the most practical solution, tbh, as I doubt they get much use anyway. This was the first time I've ever seen one in the wild. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I do use them occasionally, and often add the specific guideline in the comments box on Twinkle. I do think they should be improved, but oppose dumping them without having something better to replace them. BilCat (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@BilCat, I think the "something better" is "writing a custom message that explains the specific problem". Waving at the MOS is not generally helpful. Imagine if you wrote your first paper for university, and your prof wrote "Please follow The Chicago Manual of Style" on the first page and gave you a failing grade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Which is why I said "...and often add the specific guideline in the comments box on Twinkle." BilCat (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I feel like this template is a "well, I can't find a specific user warning to send but this one is failsafe because it mentions the MOS"
If consensus is for improvement, I think it should warn when not providing an explanation (like the big red text messages). – The Grid (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. BilCat says that they recognise a need to supplement the template with some additional text. In that case, why bother to have it at all? Why not just do the text and skip the harrumph NOW HEAR THIS! NOW HEAR THIS! intro.
In my view, there are only be one or other of two reasonable outcomes from this discusssion:
  1. the template continues to exist but is updated require an explicit MOS shortcut (like, for example, ITALIC) and the template transcludes that part of the MOS
  2. (easiest solution) the template is deleted, which requires editors to write an explanation rather than hide behind some useless and uninformative boilerplate.
I suggest a better defence of the status quo is needed than has been presented thus far. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I prefer the easier solution.
Another option, which might be equally effective, is to get the generic MOS warnings removed from Twinkle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

{{Uw-please indent}}

Hi all, I recently stumbled upon this warning template (not created by me), could someone please add it to the index of single-level templates as I am not entirely familiar with the guidelines of WP:UW? Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace/Archive_18&oldid=1231897201"